Gaia parallaxes might reduce tension for Hubble constant

In summary: The Hubble constant is the rate of expansion now. It isn't a fundamental constant like the speed of light: it's just the value of the ##H(t)## function where ##t## is set to now.
  • #1
37,097
13,934
In the last years a discrepancy between two methods to measure the Hubble constant appeared. Measurements based on redshift and the cosmic distance ladder produced results of about 73 km/(s*Mpc) while measurements based on the cosmic microwave background lead to results of about 68 km/(s*Mpc). While not completely outside the uncertainties the difference was still curious.

There are two additional independent measurements of the Hubble constant but so far they don't have the necessary precision to help: Gravitational waves from binary neutron star mergers (##70^{+12}_{-8}## from LIGO/Virgo based one one event) and multiply imaged quasars (##72.5 \pm 2.2## from H0LiCOW).

Luckily we have Gaia. More precise parallax measurements show distances could have been underestimated. A larger distance for the same redshift means a smaller Hubble constant, closer to the value from CMB measurements. Preprint:
GAIA Cepheid parallaxes and 'Local Hole' relieve H0 tension
 
  • Like
Likes TEFLing, QuantumQuest, bapowell and 1 other person
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
I saw this. Very interesting. I wonder what Riess, et.al. have to say about it. Could the Cepheid distances really be that far off (~7%)?
 
  • Like
Likes TEFLing
  • #3
phyzguy said:
I saw this. Very interesting. I wonder what Riess, et.al. have to say about it. Could the Cepheid distances really be that far off (~7%)?
Easily. Cepheids are a very dirty distance measurement, and their calibration involves measurement of a relatively small number of stars which have alternative distance measurements. If those stars that can be measured in independent ways are unusual in any respect, it can throw off the measurement by quite a lot.
 
  • Like
Likes TEFLing
  • #5
phyzguy said:
As expected, Riess, et.al. have published a rebuttal:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.03526.pdf
Very interesting! I'm glad they responded. Adam Riess is a great data scientist, and I generally trust his conclusions.

Edit:
To summarize for anybody reading this, Riess and his collaborators pointed out some serious flaws in the paper in the original post. The main ones are that they used cepheids whose distances are calibrated using an old distance measure (main sequence fitting), as well as some very bright ones that saturate the detectors (which mucks up their ability to determine the precise position of the source in an image: multiple pixels near the "true" position are maxed out and show the same color).

Once you exclude the data that shouldn't have been included, the results are consistent with other nearby measurements of ##H_0##.

They point out a few other issues, but for me this is the main take-away.
 
  • Like
Likes TEFLing and bapowell
  • #6
Isn't it possible that the Hubble constant has changed over time? Wouldn't these two different means of measuring the Hubble constant be essentially measuring the constant at different times in the past? Therefore, isn't it possible for them to both actually be correct?
 
  • Like
Likes TEFLing
  • #7
Justin Hunt said:
Isn't it possible that the Hubble constant has changed over time? Wouldn't these two different means of measuring the Hubble constant be essentially measuring the constant at different times in the past? Therefore, isn't it possible for them to both actually be correct?

No. The Hubble constant certainly changes with time. But both measurements are reporting the Hubble constant at the current time. The CMB measurement is taking the measured CMB radiation, calculating the best fit cosmology, and reporting what the Hubble constant extrapolates to at the current time. This is basically extrapolating forward in time over 13 billion years. The "local" measurement is a direct measurement of the Hubble constant at the current time. If there is a disagreement, it means either one measurement is wrong, or our cosmology model needs adjustment.
 
  • Like
Likes TEFLing
  • #8
@phyzguy you basically just proved my point. Suppose the Hubble constant has changed from 50 to 100 over the past 13 billion years. Then, measuring the CMB is essentially averaging that change over 13 billion years while the cosmic distance ladder would be measuring less than 13 billions to present.This would result in different values to be calculated. you are essentially integrating over a different length of time.

If the Hubble constant has indeed been constant for the past 13 Billion years, then I would expect both methods to get the same result.
 
  • #9
Justin Hunt said:
@phyzguy you basically just proved my point. Suppose the Hubble constant has changed from 50 to 100 over the past 13 billion years. Then, measuring the CMB is essentially averaging that change over 13 billion years while the cosmic distance ladder would be measuring less than 13 billions to present.This would result in different values to be calculated. you are essentially integrating over a different length of time.

If the Hubble constant has indeed been constant for the past 13 Billion years, then I would expect both methods to get the same result.
I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding what the Hubble constant is. The Hubble constant is the rate of expansion now. It isn't a fundamental constant like the speed of light: it's just the value of the ##H(t)## function where ##t## is set to now.

The rate of expansion was certainly far faster in the past. At the time the CMB was emitted, it was tens of thousands of times the rate of expansion today.

The way in which the CMB is used to produce a measurement of the Hubble constant is not by measuring some expansion rate in the past and extrapolating that rate forward. Rather, it's done through a cosmological model. Basically, the CMB data is sensitive to three things:
1) The CMB is very sensitive to the amount of normal matter in the universe. This directly impacts the overall brightness of the CMB itself, as the CMB was emitted from the early-universe plasma which existed at that time.
2) It is very sensitive to the ratio of dark matter to normal matter. I won't go into detail, but there's a wave pattern set up in the CMB by the presence of dark matter which allows us to estimate this ratio very precisely.
3) Finally, the CMB photons themselves travel through the rest of the universe, and in doing so constrain the overall shape of the universe in the intervening time. These measurements indicate that the universe has near-zero spatial curvature.

When you combine the above three, and add in a model for dark energy (usually the cosmological constant), you also end up constraining the current rate of expansion.

A tension between nearby measurements of the Hubble constant versus CMB-based measurements can mean a few different things:
1) The nearby measurements are biased in some way.
2) The CMB measurements are biased in some way.
3) We just happen to be in an unusual spot in the universe.
4) There's something we're missing about the model that connects the nearby measurements with the CMB measurements (e.g. dark energy that varies in time rather than being a cosmological constant).

This paper tried to claim that (1) was probably the answer, but I think Riess et. al.'s response effectively removes their argument from consideration.
 
  • Like
Likes Buzz Bloom, TEFLing, Orodruin and 1 other person
  • #10
For visual reference, H(t) evolution in the concordance model, obtained from the CMBR data (PLANCK 2015):
upload_2018-10-15_21-47-55.png

The supernova data places the current value of H(t) slightly above the curve. The discrepancy amounts to a few percent.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-10-15_21-47-55.png
    upload_2018-10-15_21-47-55.png
    4.6 KB · Views: 1,116
  • Like
Likes TEFLing
  • #11
Justin Hunt said:
@phyzguy you basically just proved my point. Suppose the Hubble constant has changed from 50 to 100 over the past 13 billion years. Then, measuring the CMB is essentially averaging that change over 13 billion years while the cosmic distance ladder would be measuring less than 13 billions to present.This would result in different values to be calculated. you are essentially integrating over a different length of time.
If the Hubble constant has indeed been constant for the past 13 Billion years, then I would expect both methods to get the same result.

To add further to what kimbyd and Bandersnatch said, look at the attached plot. The Hubble constant has decreased by a huge amount since the CMB. We are extrapolating the measurements of the CMB to today along the line shown, based on the standard model of cosmology as kimbyd explained. The discrepancy that people are arguing about is the difference between the red dot and the blue dot.

Hubble_vs_Time.png
 

Attachments

  • Hubble_vs_Time.png
    Hubble_vs_Time.png
    3.5 KB · Views: 1,143
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes TEFLing and Imager
  • #13
The discussion is still ongoing.

First Cosmological Results using Type Ia Supernovae from the Dark Energy Survey: Measurement of the Hubble Constant (DES collaboration)
They use supernovae with an inverse distance ladder based on baryon acoustic oscillations. The value they find is similar to Planck.

If we assume all the values are properly measured and we don't have a weird statistical fluctuation this would point to something going on in the early universe that affects all measurements relying on the CMB.

Early Dark Energy Can Resolve The Hubble Tension
This is a proposed model to change the early universe.
 
  • Like
Likes TEFLing and Bandersnatch
  • #14
mfb said:
The discussion is still ongoing.

First Cosmological Results using Type Ia Supernovae from the Dark Energy Survey: Measurement of the Hubble Constant (DES collaboration)
They use supernovae with an inverse distance ladder based on baryon acoustic oscillations. The value they find is similar to Planck.

If we assume all the values are properly measured and we don't have a weird statistical fluctuation this would point to something going on in the early universe that affects all measurements relying on the CMB.

This is a very interesting paper, but I don't think I agree with your assessment. Their measurement of H0 does not "rely on the CMB". It uses only the SN1A and BAO measurements out to a red-shift z=0.85. This is a lookback time only about half way to the CMB. So it is a "local" measurement, although not as local as relying on the Cepheid distance ladder. The fact that this is based on SN1A and does not agree with using the SN1A calibrated from Cepheids to me implies some systematic offset in the Cepheid based distance ladder, as claimed in the first paper of this thread.
 
  • Like
Likes TEFLing
  • #15
Okay, maybe I should have said "early universe" only. Earlier than all other methods apart from the direct CMB measurements.
In addition BAO come from the same time as the CMB.
 
  • Like
Likes TEFLing

1. What are Gaia parallaxes and how do they relate to the Hubble constant?

Gaia parallaxes are measurements of the distance to stars using the parallax effect, which is the apparent shift in a star's position when viewed from different points in Earth's orbit. These measurements can help calculate the Hubble constant, which is a measure of the rate at which the universe is expanding.

2. How can Gaia parallaxes reduce tension for the Hubble constant?

The Hubble constant can be calculated in different ways, and there has been some discrepancy between different methods. Gaia parallaxes provide a more direct and accurate measurement of the distances to stars, which can help refine the calculation of the Hubble constant and potentially reduce tension between different measurements.

3. How does the precision of Gaia parallaxes impact their usefulness for the Hubble constant?

The precision of Gaia parallaxes is crucial for their usefulness in calculating the Hubble constant. The more precise the measurements, the more accurate the calculation of the Hubble constant will be. Any errors or uncertainties in the parallax measurements can affect the final result.

4. Are there any limitations to using Gaia parallaxes for calculating the Hubble constant?

While Gaia parallaxes can provide more accurate measurements, there are still limitations to their use for calculating the Hubble constant. These include potential errors in the parallax measurements, as well as the fact that they are only useful for calculating distances up to a certain point in the universe.

5. How do Gaia parallaxes compare to other methods of calculating the Hubble constant?

Gaia parallaxes are just one of many methods used to calculate the Hubble constant. Other methods include using the cosmic microwave background radiation or the brightness of certain stars. Each method has its own strengths and limitations, and it is important to use multiple methods to cross-check and refine the results.

Similar threads

Replies
29
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top