Jaime Rudas said:Sorry but the calibration of JWST characteristics isn't the topic of the original post.
The paper by Freedman et al. is now on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06153. From the abstract:Jaime Rudas said:Regarding the OP's question, it seems that in a recent conference, Wendy Freedman showed signs of a possible solution, as described by Dr. Becky here.
Of course, as Dr. Becky rightly points out, we need to wait for the publication of the paper to draw conclusions.
Yesterday, finally, Freedman's paper was published in The Astrophysical Journal, with this relevant conclusion:Jaime Rudas said:It should be noted that Freedman's results have not yet been published.
The distances measured using the TRGB and the JAGB methods agree, on average, at a level better than 1%, and with the SHoES Cepheid distances at just over the 1% level. Our results are consistent with the current standard Lambda cold dark matter (ΛCDM) model, without the need for the inclusion of additional new physics.
It strikes me that in this new version, the highlighted quote reads:renormalize said:The paper by Freedman et al. is now on arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06153. From the abstract:
"The distances measured using the TRGB and the JAGB method agree at the 1% level, but differ from the Cepheid distances at the 2.5-4% level. The value of Ho based on these two methods with JWST data alone is Ho = 69.03 +/- 1.75 (total error) km/sec/Mpc. These numbers are consistent with the current standard Lambda CDM model, without the need for the inclusion of additional new physics. Future JWST data will be required to increase the precision and accuracy of the local distance scale."
The distances measured using the TRGB and the JAGB methods agree, on average, at a level better than 1%, and with the SHoES Cepheid distances at just over the 1% level.