Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Our Solar System's plasma bubble may brighten nearby stars enough to inflate the local Hubble constant by a few percent.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-10 19:59 UTC pith:QSJMX7KD

load-bearing objection The plasma-lensing amplitude is off by ~20 orders of magnitude; the 3–8% HT claim cannot follow from the stated cold-plasma formula and Voyager densities. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07741 v1 pith:QSJMX7KD submitted 2026-07-08 gr-qc hep-th

Systematic Light Propagation Bias from the Heliosphere and Its Impact on the Hubble Tension

Behnam Pourhassan , \.Izzet Sakall{\i} , Sudhaker Upadhyay , Kairat Myrzakulov This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th
keywords Hubble tensionheliospheredistance ladderCepheid variablesType Ia supernovaeplasma lensinginterstellar mediumcosmic expansion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that the long-standing mismatch between the Hubble constant measured nearby (about 73.5) and the value inferred from the early universe (about 67.4) is partly an optical illusion created by the heliosphere—the bubble of solar wind that surrounds the Solar System. Photons from Cepheid stars and Type Ia supernovae must pass through this stratified plasma before they reach our telescopes; density gradients act like a weak, wavelength-dependent lens that slightly brightens the sources, making them look closer and therefore making the expansion rate look higher. First-principles plasma calculations give a flux boost of order 8 percent upwind at optical wavelengths; after averaging over sky directions, partial cancellation in the distance-ladder calibration, and chromatic effects, the realistic contribution shrinks to roughly 3–8 percent of the observed 8–9 percent discrepancy. Because the same bias is invisible to geometric methods (parallax) and to millimeter-wave CMB observations, the hypothesis naturally explains why only the local photometric ladder is high. The authors spell out concrete, already-feasible tests—nose-to-tail anisotropy, a λ² wavelength signature, solar-cycle modulation—that can confirm or kill the idea without new physics.

Core claim

The heliosphere acts as a coherent, observer-side optical filter: plasma refractive-index gradients across the heliopause produce a weak-lensing flux enhancement δ_helio of order 0.08 for upwind lines of sight at 550 nm, enough to shift the local distance ladder by several percent and thereby contribute 3–8 percent of the Hubble tension once anisotropy and calibration effects are included.

What carries the argument

The plasma convergence integral κ(ω,b) = (k_DM / 2ω²) abla_b² ∫ n_e dz, with the flux boost δ_helio = 2κ in the weak-lensing limit; this is the single object that converts Voyager-constrained density profiles into a predicted photometric bias.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the numerical size of that plasma-lensing integral remaining optically relevant over only a hundred-AU path; if the transverse density gradients are weaker than modeled, the percent-level boost disappears.

What would settle it

Re-binning Pantheon+ supernovae by angular distance from the heliospheric nose (galactic coordinates l ≈ 3°, b ≈ 16°) must show a nose–tail difference Δδ_helio ≈ 0.1, or the predicted anisotropy is absent.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Local H0 inferred from Cepheids and SNe Ia should be systematically higher than geometric or spectroscopic anchors by a few percent.
  • Optical versus near-infrared distance moduli for the same calibrators should differ by the plasma λ² factor.
  • An 11-year solar-cycle modulation of order 1–2 percent should appear in long-term SN Ia monitoring.
  • An interstellar probe that observes the same standard candles from beyond the heliopause would recover a lower H0 consistent with the CMB.
  • Only broadband photometric methods inside the heliosphere are biased; parallax, masers, BAO and the CMB remain immune.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the plasma boost is real, residual scatter among local H0 methods that rely on different photometric bands may partly trace wavelength dependence rather than astrophysical diversity of the candles.
  • The same refractive mechanism would imprint a tiny, chromatic group delay on fast radio bursts and pulsars that cross the heliosphere, offering a radio-frequency cross-check independent of the optical ladder.
  • Any future all-sky photometric survey that reaches sub-percent absolute calibration could map the predicted nose–tail gradient directly and thereby convert the heliosphere from a systematic into a calibrated foreground.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that plasma refractive lensing and related effects in the heliosphere introduce a coherent, observer-side photometric bias that systematically brightens Cepheids and SNe Ia, thereby inflating the local H0. A phenomenological flux factor (1+δ_helio) is introduced (Eq. 2.1), related to the H0 ratio via Eq. 2.3, and a first-principles cold-plasma convergence integral (Eq. 2.8) is evaluated with a Voyager/IBEX-informed piecewise density model to obtain δ_der_helio(nose)≈0.08 at 550 nm. After anisotropy, partial calibration cancellation and chromatic factors the authors conclude that the heliosphere can contribute ∼3–8 % of the observed 8–9 % Hubble tension. Directional, wavelength and solar-cycle predictions are listed as falsifiable tests, and geometric methods (parallax, CMB) are argued to be immune.

Significance. If the quantitative claim were correct, the paper would supply a local, non-exotic systematic that partially reconciles early- and late-universe H0 determinations without new fundamental physics, and would furnish several concrete observational tests (nose–tail anisotropy, λ^{2} scaling, solar-cycle modulation, beyond-heliopause photometry). The attempt to derive the enhancement from first-principles plasma physics rather than pure phenomenology, the explicit immunity arguments for parallax and CMB, and the list of falsifiable signatures are genuine strengths. However, the central numerical result is currently unsupported by the intermediate quantities required to verify it, so the claimed significance remains unrealized.

major comments (3)
  1. Sec. 2.6, Eq. (2.8) and the evaluation δ_der_helio(nose)≈0.08 at λ=550 nm: with the paper’s own densities (ne∼0.1 cm^{-3}) the cold-plasma index deviation is n-1∼-10^{-22}. The transverse Laplacian of the column density over a ∼100 AU path then yields |κ| many orders of magnitude below the claimed 0.04. No intermediate values of DM(b) or abla_b^{2}DM are tabulated, the Maple worksheets are not released, and the numerical bridge from the Voyager density jump to δ=0.08 is therefore unverifiable. This single number is load-bearing for the entire 3–8 % claim; without it the quantitative contribution vanishes.
  2. Sec. 2.3 and the residual plots (Figs. 5–7): the figures adopt a phenomenological δ_helio=0.17 that is close to the full δ_req needed to close the tension, while the first-principles derivation yields only 0.08 (and a realistic contribution of 3–8 %). The discrepancy between the plotted amplitude and the derived amplitude is never reconciled, leaving the visual impression that the mechanism can largely erase the low-z residual when the text itself states it cannot.
  3. Sec. 2.5 and the scale-paradox discussion: the analogy with atmospheric extinction or mirror coatings is conceptually useful, yet those media produce O(1) optical-depth or reflectivity effects. The heliospheric plasma produces an optical-depth effect of order 10^{-22}; the paper never demonstrates how a coherent but microscopically tiny refractive gradient can accumulate into a percent-level flux bias. This gap must be closed before the “coherent systematic” argument can be accepted.
minor comments (4)
  1. Notation for the enhancement factor is inconsistent: δ_helio, δ_req_helio, δ_der_helio, δ_refr_helio and δ_eff appear without a single consolidated definition table.
  2. Fig. 3 caption and axis labels use non-ASCII characters that render poorly; the uncertainty band mentioned in the text is not shown on the plot.
  3. Several references (e.g., the Maple worksheets “available on request”) should be replaced by a public repository link if the numerical claim is to be reproducible.
  4. The Parker-spiral magnetic-field model is written for the inner heliosphere yet is never used at optical wavelengths; the paragraph can be shortened or moved to an appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: δ_der is an independent plasma-integral evaluation against external Voyager/IBEX densities; δ_req is only a comparative benchmark from the observed H0 ratio.

full rationale

The paper cleanly separates two quantities. Equation (2.3) defines δ_req_helio = (H0_obs/H0_int)^2 - 1 ≈ 0.188 solely as the value that would fully close the tension; it is never used as an input to the plasma calculation. The claimed first-principles result δ_der_helio(nose) ≈ 0.08 (Sec. 2.6, Eq. 2.8) is obtained by inserting a piecewise density model constrained by Voyager PLS/PWS and IBEX data into the standard cold-plasma refractive-index and weak-lensing convergence formulae (citing Bisnovatyi-Kogan & Tsupko and external heliospheric literature). No free parameter is fitted to the Hubble data. Subsequent reduction factors (anisotropy 0.5–0.7, partial calibration cancellation, chromatic suppression) are geometric or literature estimates that convert the derived 0.08 into the quoted 3–8 % window; they do not force the numerical value of δ_der itself. Self-citations (wave-propagation papers by the same authors) appear only in peripheral sections on the eikonal equation and are not load-bearing for the amplitude. There is therefore no self-definitional loop, no fitted-input-called-prediction, and no uniqueness or ansatz smuggled via self-citation. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cold-plasma optics plus a specific numerical evaluation of Voyager-constrained densities. Free parameters control the amplitude at the tens-of-percent level; the invented enhancement factor is the quantity whose magnitude is the entire result. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • α (HSh anisotropic compression) = 0.4
    Set to 0.4 by hand in the piecewise density model (Eq. 2.9); directly scales the nose–tail contrast.
  • β (solar-cycle modulation amplitude) = 0.1–0.2
    Taken as 0.1–0.2 from observed HP standoff variation; multiplies the base enhancement in Eq. 3.1.
  • phenomenological δ0 used in residual plots = ≈0.17
    Set near 0.17 for illustrative SN Ia figures and solar-cycle estimates; distinct from the derived 0.08 but close to the required 0.19.
  • piecewise density jump and r_HP parameters = n0=5 cm^{-3}, r0,HP≈120 AU
    n0=5 cm^{-3}, r0,HP≈120 AU and the functional form of the density jump control the Laplacian that produces δ_der; anchored to Voyager but still model choices.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Cold-plasma refractive index n≈1−ω_p²/(2ω²) and weak-lensing identification δ_helio=2κ with κ from the transverse Laplacian of electron column density
    Standard in radio plasma lensing (Sec. 2.6–2.7); applied to optical wavelengths without additional justification of geometric-optics validity at the tiny phase shifts involved.
  • domain assumption Parallax is HS-immune while photometric second-rung distances fully inherit the bias
    Core of the ladder-propagation argument (Sec. 2.4); residual ray-bending cancellation is assumed at the 10^{-4} level.
  • domain assumption ENA photometric contamination is additive and ≲10^{-3}
    Estimated from IBEX ribbon flux integrated to optical bands (Sec. 2.6); treated as subdominant to the refractive term.
  • domain assumption Parker-flow heliopause shape r_HP(θ)=r0,HP/cos(θ/2) and the associated piecewise density model
    Taken from Parker (1961) and Kleimann reviews; used for every line-of-sight integral.
invented entities (1)
  • heliospheric enhancement factor δ_helio no independent evidence
    purpose: To encapsulate the cumulative flux bias (refractive lensing + turbulence + ENA) that propagates into the local H0 measurement
    Defined phenomenologically in Eq. (2.1) and later derived; no independent laboratory or beyond-heliopause measurement yet exists, so the entity is introduced to quantify the proposed contribution to the Hubble tension.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 22590 in / 3294 out tokens · 77985 ms · 2026-07-10T19:59:03.714058+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Hubble tension (HT) represents one of the most significant discrepancies in modern cosmology, with local distance measurements yielding $H_0 = 73.5 \pm 1.4$ km/s/Mpc while cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations predict $H_0 = 67.4 \pm 0.5$ km/s/Mpc. We propose that this tension arises from systematic effects introduced by our Solar System's heliospheric (HS) environment on local distance measurements. The HS creates a complex medium of heated plasma and energetic neutral atoms (ENAs) beyond the heliopause (HP), where interstellar medium (ISM) temperatures rise significantly. This thermal gradient and particle environment may systematically affect observations of Cepheid variables and Type Ia supernovae (SNe~Ia) used in the local cosmic distance ladder (CDL), biasing distance measurements and artificially inflating the measured Hubble constant. We present theoretical calculations showing how HS effects could account for up to $\sim 8\%$ of the observed 8--9\% discrepancy, with the realistic contribution lying in the $\sim 3$--$8\%$ range once anisotropy, partial calibration cancellation, and chromatic suppression are included, and discuss observational tests to validate this hypothesis.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The Hubble Tension and Early Dark E nergy,

    Kamionkowski, M., Riess, A. G., “The Hubble Tension and Early Dark E nergy,” Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 73, 153

    work page

  2. [2]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological par ameters,

    Aghanim, N., others, “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological par ameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    A Comprehensive Measurement of the Loc al Value of the Hubble Constant,

    Riess, A. G., others, “A Comprehensive Measurement of the Loc al Value of the Hubble Constant,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L7. – 20 –

    work page

  4. [4]

    Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe,

    Verde, L., Treu, T., Riess, A. G., “Tensions between the Early and the Late Universe,” Nat. Astron. 3, 891

    work page

  5. [5]

    In the realm of the Hubble tension—a re view of solutions,

    Di Valentino, E., others, “In the realm of the Hubble tension—a re view of solutions,” Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001

    work page

  6. [6]

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 , abstract =

    Aghanim, N., others, “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological par ameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2018

  7. [7]

    Crowded No More: The Accuracy of the Hu bble Constant Tested with High-Resolution Observations of Cepheids by JWST,

    Riess, A. G., others, “Crowded No More: The Accuracy of the Hu bble Constant Tested with High-Resolution Observations of Cepheids by JWST,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 956, L18. DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf769

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf769 2041

  8. [8]

    Supernova Constraints and Systematic Un certainties,

    Conley, A., others, “Supernova Constraints and Systematic Un certainties,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 192, 1

    work page

  9. [9]

    The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Cons traints,

    Brout, D., others, “The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Cons traints,” Astrophys. J. 938, 110

    work page

  10. [10]

    Hubble Tension: The Evidence of New Phys ics,

    Hu, J.-P., Wang, F.-Y., “Hubble Tension: The Evidence of New Phys ics,” Universe 9, 94

    work page

  11. [11]

    Charged black hole solutions in modified gravity,

    Mangut, M., G¨ ursel, H., Sakallı, ˙I., “Charged black hole solutions in modified gravity,” Chin. Phys. C 49, 065106

    work page

  12. [12]

    Lorentz-symmetry violation in charged black-hole thermodynamics and gravitational lensing: effects of the Kalb–Ram ond field,

    Mangut, Mert, G¨ ursel, Huriye, Sakallı, ˙Izzet, “Lorentz-symmetry violation in charged black-hole thermodynamics and gravitational lensing: effects of the Kalb–Ram ond field,” Chin. Phys. C 49(6), 065106 (2025). DOI: 10.1088/1674-1137/adbacf

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/adbacf 2025

  13. [13]

    Testing the Cosmological Principle with Hubble Tension,

    Hu, J. P., Jia, X. D., Hu, J., Wang, F. Y., “Testing the Cosmological Principle with Hubble Tension,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 975, L36

    work page

  14. [14]

    Running Hubble Tensio n and a H0 Diagnostic,

    Krishnan, C., ´O Colg´ ain, E., Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M., Yang, T., “Running Hubble Tensio n and a H0 Diagnostic,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 103509

    work page

  15. [15]

    Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards ,

    Riess, A. G., others, “Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards ,” Astrophys. J. 876, 85

    work page

  16. [16]

    Periods of 25 Variable Stars in th e Small Magellanic Cloud,

    Leavitt, H. S., Pickering, E. C., “Periods of 25 Variable Stars in th e Small Magellanic Cloud,” Harv. Coll. Obs. Circ. 173, 1

    work page

  17. [17]

    The Hubble Constant,

    Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., “The Hubble Constant,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 48, 673

    work page

  18. [18]

    An Introduction to Modern Astroph ysics,

    Carroll, B. W., Ostlie, D. A., “An Introduction to Modern Astroph ysics,”

    work page

  19. [19]

    The Hubble constant from low-redshift probes,

    Cola¸ co, L. R., Ferreira, M., Holanda, R. F. L., Gonzalez, J. E., Nu nes, R. C., “The Hubble constant from low-redshift probes,” JCAP 05, 098

    work page

  20. [20]

    Heliospheric response to different possible interstellar environments,

    Mueller, H.-R., Frisch, P. C., Florinski, V., Zank, G. P., “Heliospheric response to different possible interstellar environments,” Astron. Astrophys. 491, 43. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20078708

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20078708

  21. [21]

    Heliospheric structure from Voyager and IBEX observations,

    Fuselier, S. A., others, “Heliospheric structure from Voyager and IBEX observations,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1620, 012004

    work page

  22. [22]

    Plasma in the Outer Heliosphere and the Local Interstellar Medium,

    Richardson, J. D., others, “Plasma in the Outer Heliosphere and the Local Interstellar Medium,” Space Sci. Rev. 218, 35

    work page

  23. [23]

    Interstellar Boundary Explorer Obs ervations of Heliospheric ENAs,

    McComas, D. J., others, “Interstellar Boundary Explorer Obs ervations of Heliospheric ENAs,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 248, 26

    work page

  24. [24]

    Wave propagation in stratified astrophysical med ia,

    Ahmed, F., Sakallı, ˙I., Al-Badawi, A., “Wave propagation in stratified astrophysical med ia,” Phys. Lett. B 864, 139448. – 21 –

    work page

  25. [25]

    Probing the Lorentz Invariance Violation via Gravitational Lensing and Analytical Eigenmodes of Pert urbed Slowly Rotating Bumblebee Black Holes,

    Mangut, Mert, G¨ ursel, Huriye, Kanzi, Sara, Sakallı, ˙Izzet, “Probing the Lorentz Invariance Violation via Gravitational Lensing and Analytical Eigenmodes of Pert urbed Slowly Rotating Bumblebee Black Holes,” Universe 9(5), 225 (2023). DOI: 10.3390/universe9050225

    work page doi:10.3390/universe9050225 2023

  26. [26]

    The Local Distance Ladder,

    Riess, A. G., others, “The Local Distance Ladder,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L7. DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b 2041

  27. [27]

    Pantheon+ Cosmological Constraints,

    Brout, D., others, “Pantheon+ Cosmological Constraints,” Astrophys. J. 938, 110. DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8e04

  28. [28]

    Gravitational lensing in plasmic medium,

    Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., Tsupko, O. Yu., “Gravitational lensing in plasmic medium,” Plasma Phys. Rep. 41, 562. DOI: 10.1134/S1063772910030091

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063772910030091

  29. [29]

    A small and round helios phere suggested by magnetohydrodynamic modelling of pickup ions,

    Opher, M., Loeb, A., Drake, J., Toth, G., “A small and round helios phere suggested by magnetohydrodynamic modelling of pickup ions,” Nat. Astron. 4, 675

    work page

  30. [30]

    Interstellar Probe: Humanity’s explor ation of the Galaxy begins,

    Brandt, P. C., others, “Interstellar Probe: Humanity’s explor ation of the Galaxy begins,” Acta Astronaut. 199, 364. DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.07.011

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.07.011 2022

  31. [31]

    Voyager 2 plasma observations of the heliopause and interstellar medium,

    Richardson, J. D., others, “Voyager 2 plasma observations of the heliopause and interstellar medium,” Nat. Astron. 3, 1019

    work page

  32. [32]

    Magnetic Field Observations from Voya ger 2,

    Burlaga, L. F., others, “Magnetic Field Observations from Voya ger 2,” Astrophys. J. 906, 119

    work page

  33. [33]

    Plasma densities near and beyond the heliopause from the Voyager 1 and 2 plasma wave instruments,

    Gurnett, D. A., Kurth, W. S., “Plasma densities near and beyond the heliopause from the Voyager 1 and 2 plasma wave instruments,” Nat. Astron. 3, 1024. DOI: 10.1038/s41550-019-0918-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0918-5

  34. [34]

    Cosmic ray me asurements from Voyager 2 as it crossed into interstellar space,

    Stone, E. C., Cummings, A. C., Heikkila, B. C., Lal, N., “Cosmic ray me asurements from Voyager 2 as it crossed into interstellar space,” Nat. Astron. 3, 1013. DOI: 10.1038/s41550-019-0928-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0928-3

  35. [35]

    IBEX Observations of the Outer Helio sphere,

    McComas, D. J., others, “IBEX Observations of the Outer Helio sphere,” AIP Conf. Proc. 858, 241

    work page

  36. [36]

    Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IB EX): Three Years of Observations,

    McComas, D. J., others, “Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IB EX): Three Years of Observations,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 213, 20. DOI: 10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/20

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/213/2/20

  37. [37]

    Power-law models for extreme scattering events,

    Tuntsov, A. V., Bignall, H. E., Walker, M. A., “Power-law models for extreme scattering events,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 435, 2270. DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stt1814

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1814

  38. [38]

    The Stellar-Wind Regions,

    Parker, E. N., “The Stellar-Wind Regions,” Astrophys. J. 134, 20 (1961). DOI: 10.1086/147124

    work page doi:10.1086/147124 1961

  39. [39]

    The Structure of the Large-Scale He liosphere as Seen by Current Models,

    Kleimann, J., Dialynas, K., Fraternale, F., Galli, A., Heerikhuisen, J., Izmodenov, V., Kornbleuth, M., Opher, M., Pogorelov, N., “The Structure of the Large-Scale He liosphere as Seen by Current Models,” Space Sci. Rev. 218(4), 36 (2022). DOI: 10.1007/s11214-022-00902-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-022-00902-6 2022

  40. [40]

    An Improved Analytical M odel of the Local Interstellar Magnetic Field: The Extension to Compressibility,

    Kleimann, J., R¨ oken, C., Fichtner, H., “An Improved Analytical M odel of the Local Interstellar Magnetic Field: The Extension to Compressibility,” Astrophys. J. 838(1), 75 (2017). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f15

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5f15 2017

  41. [41]

    Global Anisotropies in TeV Cosmic Ra ys Related to the Sun’s Local Galactic Environment from IBEX,

    Schwadron, N. A., others, “Global Anisotropies in TeV Cosmic Ra ys Related to the Sun’s Local Galactic Environment from IBEX,” Science 343, 988. DOI: 10.1126/science.1245026

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1245026

  42. [42]

    NE2001. I. A New Model for the G alactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations,

    Cordes, J. M., Lazio, T. J. W., “NE2001. I. A New Model for the G alactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations,”

    work page

  43. [43]

    Wave propagation in curved spacetime,

    Halilsoy, M., Sakallı, ˙I., “Wave propagation in curved spacetime,” Class. Quant. Grav. 20, 1417

    work page

  44. [44]

    Electromagnetic wave scattering in complex media,

    Gurtug, O., Halilsoy, M., Sakallı, ˙I., “Electromagnetic wave scattering in complex media,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 35, 2159. – 22 –

    work page

  45. [45]

    Pickup ions and the heliosphe ric current sheet,

    Schwadron, N. A., McComas, D. J., “Pickup ions and the heliosphe ric current sheet,” J. Geophys. Res. 108, 1015. DOI: 10.1029/2002JA009354

    work page doi:10.1029/2002ja009354

  46. [46]

    An exact analytical solutio n for the interstellar magnetic field in the vicinity of the heliosphere,

    Roken, C., Kleimann, J., Fichtner, H., “An exact analytical solutio n for the interstellar magnetic field in the vicinity of the heliosphere,” Astrophys. J. 805, 173. DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/173

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/805/2/173

  47. [47]

    Three-dimensional analyt ical solution of the heliospheric outer shock,

    Kleimann, J., Roken, C., Fichtner, H., “Three-dimensional analyt ical solution of the heliospheric outer shock,” Astrophys. J. 816, 99. DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/816/2/99

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/816/2/99

  48. [48]

    The Local Structure of Turbulence in Inco mpressible Viscous Fluid,

    Kolmogorov, A. N., “The Local Structure of Turbulence in Inco mpressible Viscous Fluid,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 30, 301

    work page

  49. [49]

    Electron Den sity Power Spectrum in the Local Interstellar Medium,

    Armstrong, J. W., Rickett, B. J., Spangler, S. R., “Electron Den sity Power Spectrum in the Local Interstellar Medium,” Astrophys. J. 443, 209

    work page

  50. [50]

    Kepler Mission Stellar and Instrument Nois e Properties,

    Gilliland, R. L., others, “Kepler Mission Stellar and Instrument Nois e Properties,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 197, 6

    work page

  51. [51]

    Photometric stability requirements for Roman,

    Hirata, C. M., others, “Photometric stability requirements for Roman,” J. Astron. Telesc. Instrum. Syst. 2, 041207

    work page

  52. [52]

    The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spe ctroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combine d Pantheon Sample,

    Scolnic, D. M., others, “The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spe ctroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combine d Pantheon Sample,” Astrophys. J. 859, 101

    work page

  53. [53]

    Measuring cosmological parameters with Gamma Ray Bursts,

    Amati, L., Della Valle, M., “Measuring cosmological parameters with Gamma Ray Bursts,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 22, 1330028. DOI: 10.1142/S0218271813300280

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1142/s0218271813300280

  54. [54]

    Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosm ological probes,

    Moresco, M., others, “Unveiling the Universe with emerging cosm ological probes,” Living Rev. Rel. 25, 6. DOI: 10.1007/s41114-022-00040-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00040-z

  55. [55]

    The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Backg round,

    Fixsen, D. J., “The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Backg round,” Astrophys. J. 707, 916. DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/916

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/2/916

  56. [56]

    and others , title =

    Di Valentino, E., others, “In the realm of the Hubble tension—a r eview of solutions,” Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 153001. DOI: 10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

  57. [57]

    The H0 Olympics: A fair ranking of pro posed models,

    Schoneberg, N., others, “The H0 Olympics: A fair ranking of pro posed models,” Phys. Rept. 984,

    work page

  58. [58]

    DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.07.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.07.001 2022

  59. [59]

    Anomalous Orbital-Energy Changes Observed during Spacecraft Flybys of Earth,

    Anderson, J. D., others, “Anomalous Orbital-Energy Changes Observed during Spacecraft Flybys of Earth,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 091102

    work page

  60. [60]

    Gravitational signatures of plasma effects,

    Ahmed, F., Al-Badawi, A., Sakallı, ˙I., “Gravitational signatures of plasma effects,” Phys. Dark Univ. 49, 101988

    work page

  61. [61]

    Local-frame anomalies in modified gra vity,

    Pourhassan, B., others, “Local-frame anomalies in modified gra vity,” JHEP 02, 109. – 23 –

    work page