{
  "id": "oai:papers.qnfo.org:scale-divergence-problem",
  "slug": "scale-divergence-problem",
  "title": "Scale-Divergence Problem",
  "authors": [
    "Rowan Brad Quni-Gudzinas"
  ],
  "abstract": "This document provides a rigorous examination of the Scale-Divergence Problem, a fundamental schism in modern cosmology that arises from the antithetical performance of the two leading theoretical frameworks—Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) and Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND)—across different physical scales. ΛCDM achieves remarkable success in explaining cosmological observations (Cosmic Microwave Background, large-scale structure) but encounters significant challenges at galactic scales (cusp-core problem, radial acceleration relation). Conversely, MOND provides a simple, parameter-minimal explanation for galactic dynamics but fails catastrophically at cosmological scales and in galaxy clusters. This analysis systematically evaluates the theoretical foundations, observational successes, and critical failures of both paradigms. It demonstrates that neither framework, in its current form, offers a complete and universally consistent description of gravitational phenomena across all scales. [...]",
  "abstract_markdown": "This document provides a rigorous examination of the Scale-Divergence Problem, a fundamental schism in modern cosmology that arises from the antithetical performance of the two leading theoretical frameworks—Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) and Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND)—across different physical scales. ΛCDM achieves remarkable success in explaining cosmological observations (Cosmic Microwave Background, large-scale structure) but encounters significant challenges at galactic scales (cusp-core problem, radial acceleration relation). Conversely, MOND provides a simple, parameter-minimal explanation for galactic dynamics but fails catastrophically at cosmological scales and in galaxy clusters. This analysis systematically evaluates the theoretical foundations, observational successes, and critical failures of both paradigms. It demonstrates that neither framework, in its current form, offers a complete and universally consistent description of gravitational phenomena across all scales. [...]",
  "date": "2025-09-01",
  "first_published": "2025-09-01",
  "last_revised": "2026-10-28T02:41:22Z",
  "modified": "2026-10-28T02:41:22Z",
  "version": "1.1.0",
  "version_count": 2,
  "language": "en",
  "keywords": [],
  "quality_tags": [
    "High-quality scholarly research",
    "open-access scholarly work",
    "versioned research publication"
  ],
  "quality_label": "High-quality scholarly research",
  "quality_basis": "QNFO publisher classification for open-access, versioned research with a public revision history and reader correction channel; this is not a claim of independent peer review.",
  "quality_evidence_url": "https://qnfo.org/about",
  "peer_review_status": "Not independently peer-reviewed",
  "resource_type": "ScholarlyArticle",
  "doi": null,
  "doi_url": null,
  "url": "https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/scale-divergence-problem",
  "license_url": "https://legal.qnfo.org/",
  "license_spdx": null,
  "sha256": "4e6d85bb28924117aa0e241e9c75bc1796a4e5d26aeace4509528dc240a09ecb",
  "version_url": "https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/scale-divergence-problem/v/1.1.0",
  "datacite": {
    "schemaVersion": "http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-4",
    "identifiers": [
      {
        "identifier": "https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/scale-divergence-problem",
        "identifierType": "URL"
      }
    ],
    "creators": [
      {
        "name": "Rowan Brad Quni-Gudzinas",
        "nameType": "Personal",
        "nameIdentifiers": [
          {
            "nameIdentifier": "https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4317-5604",
            "nameIdentifierScheme": "ORCID",
            "schemeUri": "https://orcid.org"
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "titles": [
      {
        "title": "Scale-Divergence Problem"
      }
    ],
    "publisher": "QNFO",
    "publicationYear": "2025",
    "resourceType": {
      "resourceTypeGeneral": "Text",
      "resourceType": "ScholarlyArticle"
    },
    "subjects": [
      {
        "subject": "High-quality scholarly research",
        "subjectScheme": "QNFO publisher classification",
        "schemeUri": "https://qnfo.org/about"
      },
      {
        "subject": "open-access scholarly work",
        "subjectScheme": "QNFO publisher classification",
        "schemeUri": "https://qnfo.org/about"
      },
      {
        "subject": "versioned research publication",
        "subjectScheme": "QNFO publisher classification",
        "schemeUri": "https://qnfo.org/about"
      }
    ],
    "dates": [
      {
        "date": "2025-09-01",
        "dateType": "Issued"
      },
      {
        "date": "2026-10-28",
        "dateType": "Updated"
      }
    ],
    "language": "en",
    "version": "1.1.0",
    "rightsList": [
      {
        "rightsUri": "https://legal.qnfo.org/"
      }
    ],
    "descriptions": [
      {
        "description": "This document provides a rigorous examination of the Scale-Divergence Problem, a fundamental schism in modern cosmology that arises from the antithetical performance of the two leading theoretical frameworks—Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) and Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND)—across different physical scales. ΛCDM achieves remarkable success in explaining cosmological observations (Cosmic Microwave Background, large-scale structure) but encounters significant challenges at galactic scales (cusp-core problem, radial acceleration relation). Conversely, MOND provides a simple, parameter-minimal explanation for galactic dynamics but fails catastrophically at cosmological scales and in galaxy clusters. This analysis systematically evaluates the theoretical foundations, observational successes, and critical failures of both paradigms. It demonstrates that neither framework, in its current form, offers a complete and universally consistent description of gravitational phenomena across all scales. [...]",
        "descriptionType": "Abstract"
      },
      {
        "description": "Publisher quality classification: High-quality scholarly research. QNFO publisher classification for open-access, versioned research with a public revision history and reader correction channel; this is not a claim of independent peer review.",
        "descriptionType": "Other"
      },
      {
        "description": "Peer review status: Not independently peer-reviewed",
        "descriptionType": "Other"
      }
    ],
    "formats": [
      "text/html"
    ]
  }
}