New measurement of the Hubble constant is consistent with the CMB value

In summary, a new measurement of the Hubble constant based on gamma ray attenuation is consistent with the lower (CMB-based) value. The analysis also includes other non-CMB techniques and finds a value consistent with the CMB value. However, the matter density measurement from this technique is not as reliable due to its low sensitivity. Overall, this adds another independent method of measuring the Hubble constant, although more work is needed to improve its accuracy.
  • #1
phyzguy
Science Advisor
5,170
2,185
TL;DR Summary
New measurement of the Hubble constant is consistent with the CMB value.
This paper just came out with a new measurement of the Hubble constant based on the technique of gamma ray attenuation. The result is consistent with the lower (CMB-based) value. Interestingly, they also do a joint analysis of several non-CMB techniques (BAO+BBN+SN+γ-ray attenuation), and find a value completely consistent with the CMB value. Clearly, the jury is still out on this issue, and recent pop-science articles about a "crisis in cosmology" are a bit premature.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Wrichik Basu, Lord Crc, Dale and 3 others
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
I want to ask something off-topic. Is there a some site or some journal that you are following so that you can learn about these articles or its just from random searches/news ?

Both the γ-ray measurements and the EBL models may be subject to hidden systematic uncertainties. We account for these effects by fitting a systematic error in δτ /τ as an additional nuisance parameter
We assume that the systematic error is independent of the statistical uncertainties in the measurements of γ-ray attenuation. In order to exhaust all possible trends, we also assume that the systematic error is a power-law function of γ-ray energy and redshift, where power-law indices are additional free parameters fitted to the data. All cosmological constraints presented in our work are marginalized over the nuisance parameters describing the systematic errors. For both EBL models, the obtained systematic errors are smaller than or comparable to the statistical uncertainties. All fits point to a statistically significant dependence on energy, with the systematic error increasing with decreasing energy.


And something seems odd to me. They are fixing the ##\Omega_{m} = 0.32 ## and this leads to ##H_0 = 67.5 \pm 2.1## but when they fix the Hubble constant at ##H_0 = 68## They get ##\Omega_{m} = 0.21\pm 0.08##

I don't know statistics so it just seemed odd to obtain such matter density value.

I guess this is an another experiment that takes side to the CMB. If the true value is obtained from the CMB then there should be some major systematic errors in the SN (also Gaia etc.) measurements. I think the crisis is still going on.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
I usually go to the new astrophysics papers section on the arXiv and see what is there. On your other question, I think the most relevant result is when they have fit for both H0 and Ωm, which you see in the graph below. At least in this paper, they conclude that the CMB measurements (red contours) and the combined other measurements (black contours) are consistent. Identifying the unkown systematic errors in each of these measurements is always the hard part.

H0.png
 
  • Like
Likes Arman777
  • #4
Thanks.
phyzguy said:
Identifying the unkown systematic errors in each of these measurements is always the hard part.
Well yes I agree. I am doing a project about Hubble Tension. These recent papers are great for me. Something new is happening every day
 
  • #5
Arman777 said:
And something seems odd to me. They are fixing the ##\Omega_{m} = 0.32 ## and this leads to ##H_0 = 67.5 \pm 2.1## but when they fix the Hubble constant at ##H_0 = 68## They get ##\Omega_{m} = 0.21\pm 0.08##
What this says, essentially, is that the gamma ray attenuation measurements have very little sensitivity to the matter density. This is relatively clear on the plot that phyzguy posted above, where you see that the measurements by this work alone (the green triangle-shaped contour) permits matter density to go pretty much as low as you like. And as matter density drops, the constraints on the Hubble parameter get looser and looser. Thus this analysis can't really be used to measure matter density.

But if you use other data to constrain the matter density, you also find a relatively narrow measurement of the Hubble parameter, because the matter density is constrained to be near the peak of the triangle. This suggests, at least on the surface, that if the matter density had been lower, this technique would be less able to measure the Hubble parameter.
 
  • Like
Likes Arman777
  • #6
phyzguy said:
Summary: New measurement of the Hubble constant is consistent with the CMB value.

This paper just came out with a new measurement of the Hubble constant based on the technique of gamma ray attenuation. The result is consistent with the lower (CMB-based) value. Interestingly, they also do a joint analysis of several non-CMB techniques (BAO+BBN+SN+γ-ray attenuation), and find a value completely consistent with the CMB value. Clearly, the jury is still out on this issue, and recent pop-science articles about a "crisis in cosmology" are a bit premature.
Very interesting! Definitely leans towards the CMB estimate being more likely to be correct. I'll be curious to see further developments in this space.
 
  • #7
kimbyd said:
What this says, essentially, is that the gamma ray attenuation measurements have very little sensitivity to the matter density. This is relatively clear on the plot that phyzguy posted above, where you see that the measurements by this work alone (the green triangle-shaped contour) permits matter density to go pretty much as low as you like. And as matter density drops, the constraints on the Hubble parameter get looser and looser. Thus this analysis can't really be used to measure matter density.

But if you use other data to constrain the matter density, you also find a relatively narrow measurement of the Hubble parameter, because the matter density is constrained to be near the peak of the triangle. This suggests, at least on the surface, that if the matter density had been lower, this technique would be less able to measure the Hubble parameter.
So this this technique is not good for measuring matter density since it fluctuates but its good for ##H_0##...
 
  • #8
Arman777 said:
So this this technique is not good for measuring matter density since it fluctuates but its good for ##H_0##...
I wouldn't say it's good for ##H_0##. It's not great for ##H_0##, but more important than that is it's another independent way of measuring the parameter. The error bars really aren't anything to write home about, but the independence of the technique makes it valuable. Presumably further effort might reduce the error bars further, making it more useful in the future.
 
  • #9
kimbyd said:
I wouldn't say it's good for ##H_0##. It's not great for ##H_0##, but more important than that is it's another independent way of measuring the parameter. The error bars really aren't anything to write home about, but the independence of the technique makes it valuable. Presumably further effort might reduce the error bars further, making it more useful in the future.
I find another recent article that is model- independent
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.04967.pdf
Error bars a bit high but seems good enough I guess. There are so many contradicting independent measurements. Its really crazy. Every independent way is great indeed but there are alwats two side of the coin.
 
  • #10
Arman777 said:
I find another recent article that is model- independent
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.04967.pdf
Error bars a bit high but seems good enough I guess. There are so many contradicting independent measurements. Its really crazy. Every independent way is great indeed but there are alwats two side of the coin.
Eventually they'll figure out what's causing the discrepancies. 99% of the time it's some error in the design of one of the observations.
 
  • #11
Arman777 said:
I want to ask something off-topic. Is there a some site or some journal that you are following so that you can learn about these articles or its just from random searches/news ?
I have subscribed to alerts from APS and Springer. They periodically send me emails with the list of latest publications.
 
  • Like
Likes Arman777

1. What is the Hubble constant?

The Hubble constant is a measurement of the rate at which the universe is expanding. It is expressed in units of kilometers per second per megaparsec (km/s/Mpc).

2. What is the CMB value?

The CMB value refers to the measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, which is the leftover radiation from the Big Bang. This is an important source of information for understanding the early universe and its expansion.

3. What does it mean for the Hubble constant to be consistent with the CMB value?

When the Hubble constant and the CMB value are consistent, it means that the measurements of the expansion rate of the universe obtained from these two different methods are in agreement with each other. This provides further evidence for our understanding of the universe's expansion.

4. How was the new measurement of the Hubble constant obtained?

The new measurement was obtained using the Hubble Space Telescope and a technique called "time-delay cosmography." This involves measuring the time delay between multiple images of a distant supernova caused by the bending of light by massive objects, such as galaxies, in between.

5. Why is it important to have a consistent measurement of the Hubble constant and the CMB value?

Having a consistent measurement of the Hubble constant and the CMB value allows us to better understand the expansion of the universe and the fundamental laws of physics that govern it. It also helps to refine our understanding of the age and size of the universe, as well as the distribution of matter and energy within it.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
6K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top