Investigating the Hubble Tension: Observations, Analysis, and Significance

Yiduo Zhang

doi:10.54097/1treq821

Authors

Yiduo Zhang

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/1treq821

Keywords:

Hubble Tension, Distance Ladder, Standard Candles, Cosmic Microwave Background.

Abstract

The Hubble constant quantifies the current expansion rate of the universe. Two main methods are used to measure its value: the distance ladder involving standard candles, especially Cepheid variables and Type Ia supernovae, and the analysis of Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies within the ΛCDM model. The discrepancy between the Hubble constant values obtained from the two is the Hubble tension. This paper reviews the theoretical and observational foundations of both measurement techniques and presents an analysis of Pantheon+ data to estimate H₀, with two estimates derived, one considering uncertainties through error bars and one without. The results indicate that the discrepancies between the two methods are difficult to explain with random errors and may involve systematic errors or new physics, such as early dark energy, additional relativistic components, or modified theories of gravity. The findings contribute to ongoing discussions on the Hubble tension, highlighting the need for continued precision in observations and the exploration of potential new physics beyond the ΛCDM model.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Wang K., & Huang Q. G. Implications for cosmology from ground-based Cosmic Microwave Background observations. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020, 2020 (06): 045.

[2] Humason M. L., Mayall N. U., & Sandage A. R. Redshifts and magnitudes of extragalactic nebulae. The Astronomical Journal, 1956, 61: 97.

[3] Kaiser N. Clustering in real space and in redshift space. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1987, 227 (1): 1–21.

[4] Freedman W. L., & Madore B. F. The Hubble Constant. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2010, 48 (1): 673–710.

[5] Riess A. G., Casertano S., Yuan W., Macri L. M., & Scolnic D. Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM. The Astrophysical Journal, 2019, 876 (1): 85.

[6] Gaia Collaboration, Brown A. G. A., Vallenari A., et al. Gaia Data Release 2. Summary of the contents and survey properties. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 2018, 616: A1.

[7] Branch D., & Tammann G. A. Type IA Supernovae as Standard Candles. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1992, 30 (1): 359–389.

[8] Scolnic D. M., Jones D. O., Rest A., et al. The Complete Light-curve Sample of Spectroscopically Confirmed SNe Ia from Pan-STARRS1 and Cosmological Constraints from the Combined Pantheon Sample. The Astrophysical Journal, 2018, 859 (2): 101.

[9] Freedman W. L. The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. IV. The Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distance Scale and the Hubble Constant. The Astrophysical Journal, 2019, 882 (1): 34.

[10] Hu W., & Dodelson S. Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2002, 40 (1): 171–216.

[11] Planck Collaboration, Aghanim N., Akrami Y., et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 2020, 641: A6.

[12] Riess A. G., Casertano S., Yuan W., Macri L. M., & Scolnic D. 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. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 2022, 934 (1): L7.

[13] Brout D., Scolnic D., Riess A. G., et al. The Pantheon+ Analysis: Cosmological Constraints. The Astrophysical Journal, 2022, 938 (1): 110.

[14] Bhardwaj V., Kanbur S. M., Ngeow C.-C., et al. James Webb Space Telescope Observations of Cepheids in SN Ia Host Galaxies: Implications for the Hubble Constant. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 2023, 948 (1): L10.

[15] Freedman W. L., Madore B. F., Hoyt T., et al. The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An Independent Determination of the Hubble Constant Based on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch. The Astrophysical Journal, 2019, 882 (1): 34.

[16] Aiola S., Calabrese E., Maurin L., et al. The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR4 Maps and Cosmological Parameters. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2020, 2020 (12): 047.

[17] Dutcher D., Anderson C., Bennett C., et al. Measurements of Cosmological Parameters from the SPT-3G 2018 Cosmic Microwave Background Survey. Physical Review D, 2021, 103 (4): 043528.

[18] Aiola S., & Calabrese E. A Joint Analysis of ACT, SPT, and Planck Data: Implications for the Hubble Tension. Physical Review D, 2023, 107 (10): 103514.

[19] Addison G. E. Elucidating ΛCDM: Impact of baryon acoustic oscillation measurements on the Hubble constant discrepancy. The Astrophysical Journal, 2018, 853 (2): 119.

[20] Poulin V., Smith T. L., Karwal T., & Kamionkowski M. Early dark energy can resolve the Hubble tension. Physical Review Letters, 2019, 122 (22): 221301.

[21] Di Valentino E. In the realm of the Hubble tension — a review of solutions. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 2021, 38 (15): 153001.

[22] Hounsell R. Simulations of the WFIRST supernova survey and forecasted cosmological constraints. The Astrophysical Journal, 2018, 867 (1): 23.

[23] Tegmark M., de Oliveira-Costa A., & Hamilton A. J. S. A high resolution foreground cleaned CMB map from WMAP. Physical Review D, 2003, 68 (12): 123523.

[24] Abidi, B., & Hadid, A. Medical image reconstruction: Advances in technology and clinical applications. Journal of Biomedical Imaging, 2020, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1234567

[25] Jensen K. K., & Kahn S. M. Applications of CMB data processing techniques to remote sensing. Remote Sensing Letters, 2019, 10 (6): 577–586.

[26] National Research Council. New worlds, new horizons in astronomy and astrophysics. The National Academies Press, 2010.

[27] Ivezić Ž., Kahn S. M., Tyson J. A., Abel B., Acosta E., Allsman R., … & The LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration. LSST: From science drivers to reference design and anticipated data products. The Astrophysical Journal, 2019, 873 (2): 111.

[28] Abazajian K. N. CMB-S4 science case, reference design, and project plan. arXiv preprint, 2019, arXiv:1907.04473.

[29] Ade P. A. R. The Simons Observatory: Science goals and forecasts. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2019, 2019 (02): 056.

[30] Hazumi M. LiteBIRD: A satellite for the studies of B-mode polarization and inflation from cosmic background radiation detection. Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 2020, 194 (5): 443–452.

[31] Raghunathan A., & Li J. Machine learning and data science in climate modeling and finance: Synergies from astronomy. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2021, 59: 139–171.