Is the Hubble Constant Truly Constant?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Hubble constant (HC) has been estimated using various methods, including the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, Cepheid variables, and Type 1 supernovae, with the ESA Planck Mission providing a value of 67.8 km/sec/MPc. Discrepancies in these estimates arise from differences in the age of the universe at the time of emission for each source type, leading to debates on whether the measurements have larger error bars or if the cosmological model requires revision. The Lambda-CDM model accounts for the variation of the HC over time, indicating that the HC itself remains a constant descriptor of the universe's expansion rate, despite historical fluctuations in that rate.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Lambda-CDM model of cosmology
  • Familiarity with Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation analysis
  • Knowledge of astronomical distance measurement techniques, such as Cepheid variables
  • Basic principles of cosmological expansion and Hubble's Law
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Lambda-CDM model on current cosmological theories
  • Explore the methods of measuring the Hubble constant, focusing on Type 1 supernovae
  • Investigate the significance of the Cosmic Microwave Background in cosmology
  • Examine the historical context of Hubble's Law and its evolution in modern astrophysics
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, cosmologists, and physics students interested in the nuances of cosmic expansion and the ongoing debates surrounding the Hubble constant and its implications for our understanding of the universe.

ea251ah
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hubble constants (HCs) have been estimated based on the CMB, on Cepheid variables, gravitationally lensed quasars, Type 1 supernovae, and red giant luminosity. Not all agree within their estimated error bounds. This has been represented by some as a conundrum. Is it? The mean age of the universe when each type of source emitted its electromagnetic radiation differs among the source types. E.g., the CMB was emitted within a few hundred thousand years of the Big Bang, according to the prevailing theory, and the value estimated by the ESA Planck Mission based on its analysis of the CMB, 67.8 km/sec/MPc, is the lowest of current estimates. If the HC varies with time, could not the various HC estimates be reconciled based on the average age of the universe for each emission source type?
 
Space news on Phys.org
The variation of the Hubble constant with time is already taken into account in comparing these estimates. All of the estimates are extrapolated to the current time using the accepted Lambda-CDM model of the universe. The actual Hubble constant value at the time of the emission of the CMB radiation was approximately 10^6 times greater than what we see today.
 
Thanks for the clarification. So the discrepancy among estimates is still a conundrum?
 
ea251ah said:
Thanks for the clarification. So the discrepancy among estimates is still a conundrum?
Yes, either the measurements have larger error bars than the given estimates, or our cosmological model needs to change. Which of these two is the source of the discrepancy is still debated. You might read through this thread.
 
phyzguy said:
The variation of the Hubble constant with time is already taken into account in comparing these estimates. All of the estimates are extrapolated to the current time using the accepted Lambda-CDM model of the universe. The actual Hubble constant value at the time of the emission of the CMB radiation was approximately 10^6 times greater than what we see today.
To clarify a bit, the Hubble constant is the rate of expansion now. The rate of expansion was very different in the past. The Hubble constant itself doesn't change, as it just sets the overall scale of the rate of expansion, with the change in expansion over time determined by the mass/energy content of our universe.

The rate of expansion at the time the CMB was emitted, for instance, was tens of thousands of times greater than the rate of expansion today. But we still use the same constant to describe both because you can calculate the rate in the past given the current rate and the contents of our universe.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K