A buyer’s guide to the Hubble constant
By Paul Shah, P. Lemos, Ofer Lahav. The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review, 2021
166 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Since the expansion of the universe was first established by Edwin Hubble and Georges Lemaître about a century ago, the Hubble constant H0\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$H_0$$\end{document} 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 H0=73.2±1.3kms-1Mpc-1\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$H_0 = 73.2 \pm 1.3 \; \;\,\hbox {kms}^{-1} \,\hbox {Mpc}^{-1}$$\end{document} locally, whereas the value found for the early universe by the Planck Collaboration is H0=67.4±0.5kms-1Mpc-1\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$H_0 = 67.4 \pm 0.5 \; \;\,\hbox {kms}^{-1} \,\hbox {Mpc}^{-1}$$\end{document} from measurements of the cosmic microwave background. Is this gap a sign that the well-established ΛCDM\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\varLambda} {\text{CDM}}$$\end{document} 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 buyer’s guide to the results, and make recommendations.
Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a8243b4be511ebd08ca176a9fd1453576b0bcbcd
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Astronomy and Astrophysics
Citations in the corpus
- Hubble Tension: The Evidence of New Physics (2023, background): “[97] as well as newer studies (see Section 4.”
- A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s−1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team (2021, background): “Other precise measures of H0 in the local universe from the distance– redshift relation generally range from 70 to 75, and those grounded in the pre-recombination version of ΛCDM range from 67 to 68, and have been extensively reviewed (Verde et al. 2019; Di Valentino et al. 2021; Shah et al. 2021).”
- The Hubble Tension and Early Dark Energy (2022, background): “Fortunately, there are excellent recent and broad reviews on various aspects of the Hubble tension (16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21) and the various types of models that have been invoked to explain it (19, 22).”