Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userThe 1% Concordance Hubble Constant
218
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
C. L. Bennett
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The determination of the Hubble constant has been a central goal in observational astrophysics for nearly 100 years. Extraordinary progress has occurred in recent years on two fronts: the cosmic distance ladder measurements at low redshift and cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurements at high redshift. The CMB is used to predict the current expansion rate through a best-fit cosmological model. Complementary progress has been made with baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) measurements at relatively low redshifts. While BAO data do not independently determine a Hubble constant, they are important for constraints on possible solutions and checks on cosmic consistency. A precise determination of the Hubble constant is of great value, but it is more important to compare the high and low redshift measurements to test our cosmological model. Significant tension would suggest either uncertainties not accounted for in the experimental estimates, or the discovery of new physics beyond the standard model of cosmology. In this paper we examine in detail the tension between the CMB, BAO, and cosmic distance ladder data sets. We find that these measurements are consistent within reasonable statistical expectations, and we combine them to determine a best-fit Hubble constant of 69.6+/-0.7 km/s/Mpc. This value is based upon WMAP9+SPT+ACT+6dFGS+BOSS/DR11+H_0/Riess; we explore alternate data combinations in the text. The combined data constrain the Hubble constant to 1%, with no compelling evidence for new physics.
rate research
Read More
Since the expansion of the universe was first established by Edwin Hubble and Georges Lemaitre about a century ago, the Hubble constant H0 which measures its rate has been of great interest to astronomers. Besides being interesting in its own right, few properties of the universe can be deduced without it. In the last decade a significant gap has emerged between different methods of measuring it, some anchored in the nearby universe, others at cosmological distances. The SH0ES team has found $H_0 = 73.2 pm 1.3$ km sec$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ locally, whereas the value found for the early universe by the Planck Collaboration is $H_0 = 67.4 pm 0.5$ km sec$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ from measurements of the cosmic microwave background. Is this gap a sign that the well-established $Lambda$CDM cosmological model is somehow incomplete? Or are there unknown systematics? And more practically, how should humble astronomers pick between competing claims if they need to assume a value for a certain purpose? In this article, we review results and what changes to the cosmological model could be needed to accommodate them all. For astronomers in a hurry, we provide a buyers guide to the results, and make recommendations.
The current cosmological probes have provided a fantastic confirmation of the standard $Lambda$ Cold Dark Matter cosmological model, that has been constrained with unprecedented accuracy. However, with the increase of the experimental sensitivity a few statistically significant tensions between different independent cosmological datasets emerged. While these tensions can be in portion the result of systematic errors, the persistence after several years of accurate analysis strongly hints at cracks in the standard cosmological scenario and the need for new physics. In this Letter of Interest we will focus on the $4.4sigma$ tension between the Planck estimate of the Hubble constant $H_0$ and the SH0ES collaboration measurements. After showing the $H_0$ evaluations made from different teams using different methods and geometric calibrations, we will list a few interesting new physics models that could solve this tension and discuss how the next decade experiments will be crucial.
We report the outcome of a 3-day workshop on the Hubble constant (H_0) that took place during February 6-8 2012 at the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, on the campus of Stanford University. The participants met to address the following questions. Are there compelling scientific reasons to obtain more precise and more accurate measurements of H_0 than currently available? If there are, how can we achieve this goal? The answers that emerged from the workshop are (1) better measurements of H_0 provide critical independent constraints on dark energy, spatial curvature of the Universe, neutrino physics, and validity of general relativity, (2) a measurement of H_0 to 1% in both precision and accuracy, supported by rigorous error budgets, is within reach for several methods, and (3) multiple paths to independent determinations of H_0 are needed in order to access and control systematics.
Recent measurements of a peak in the angular power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background appear to suggest that geometry of the universe is close to being flat. But if other accepted indicators of cosmological parameters are also correct then the best fit model is marginally closed, with the peak in the spectrum at larger scales than in a flat universe. Such observations can be reconciled with a flat universe if the fine structure constant had a lower value at earlier times, which would delay the recombination of electrons and protons and also act to suppress secondary oscillations as observed. We discuss evidence for a few percent increase in the fine structure constant between the time of recombination and the present.
It is well known that measurements of H0 from gravitational lens time delays scale as H0~1-k_E where k_E is the mean convergence at the Einstein radius R_E but that all available lens data other than the delays provide no direct constraints on k_E. The properties of the radial mass distribution constrained by lens data are R_E and the dimensionless quantity x=R_E a(R_E)/(1-k_E)$ where a(R_E) is the second derivative of the deflection profile at R_E. Lens models with too few degrees of freedom, like power law models with densities ~r^(-n), have a one-to-one correspondence between x and k_E (for a power law model, x=2(n-2) and k_E=(3-n)/2=(2-x)/4). This means that highly constrained lens models with few parameters quickly lead to very precise but inaccurate estimates of k_E and hence H0. Based on experiments with a broad range of plausible dark matter halo models, it is unlikely that any current estimates of H0 from gravitational lens time delays are more accurate than ~10%, regardless of the reported precision.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
