Tension Over Hubble Constant Continues

By: Monica Young July 24, 2019 7

A new measurement fuels an ongoing debate about the rate at which today’s universe is expanding.

Reproduceability is key to science. A one-time “eureka!” could be the first step in a paradigm shift — or it could be a fluke. It’s the second, third, and hundredth measurements that put theories to the test.

That’s why recent measurements of the universe’s expansion have piqued interest. Even though astronomers have applied multiple methods relying on completely different physics, they’re still getting similar results: Today’s universe appears to be expanding faster than what’s expected based on measurements of the early universe. Can systematic errors explain this discrepancy? Or are new physics required?

Now Wendy Freedman (University of Chicago) and colleagues have posted a new, "middle-of-the-road" measurement on the astronomy preprint arXiv, adding a twist to the ongoing debate. The study will appear in the Astrophysical Journal.

Hubble constant vs. publication year — The value of th current expansion rate of the universe, also called the Hubble constant, appears to depend on how it's measured. Observations of the early universe give lower values (gray) than those measured using nearby objects (blue). Studies of red giant stars are giving a value of the Hubble constant that's right in the middle (red).
*Freedman et al. / Astrophysical Journal*

Hubble Constant: Near vs. Far

There are two ways that astronomers can estimate the current expansion rate, also known as the Hubble constant (H₀). The first is to look way back in time and space.

Exquisitely precise measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the Big Bang’s “afterglow,” provide a window into the young universe. Tiny temperature fluctuations in this background radiation correlate to density variations in a cosmos only 370,000 years old, which in turn relate to the structure of galaxies and galaxy clusters in the universe today, roughly 13.8 billion years later. Cosmologists can reproduce every last wiggle of those temperature variations using the so-called “Lambda CDM” model, a scenario where dark matter and dark energy rule the universe.

Planck power spectrum — The strength of temperature variations (vertical) is plotted against their angular sizes (horizontal, approximate). The red line is the standard cosmological model, which includes dark matter and dark energy; the blue dots are Planck data.
*Planck Collaboration*

The most recent Hubble constant measurements in this vein come from the Planck satellite: 67.4±0.5 km s^-1 Mpc^-1. (Yes, those are weird units: here’s why.) Other, independent methods based on properties of the early universe end up with a similar number.

Astronomers can also estimate the expansion rate in the modern-day universe, by measuring the rate at which galaxies appear to fly away from our own. The trick is to find the galaxies’ correct distances. That’s where standard candles come in: Astronomers can measure the brightness of these objects and compare them to their known luminosity to calculate their distance.

Type Ia supernova (art) — Type Ia supernovae, as shown here in an artist's impression, is one type of standard candle that enables astronomers to measure how fast the universe is currently expanding.
*ESO / M. Kornmesser*

Here’s where it starts to get interesting: Measurements using relatively nearby objects, such as Type Ia supernovae, Cepheid variable stars, and other standard candles result in a larger Hubble constant, with values between 73 and 76 km s^-1 Mpc^-1. In other words, the universe appears to be expanding faster now than what’s expected based on observations of the early universe.

And now for the twist: A new study using a new kind of standard candle finds a middle-of-the-road Hubble constant: 69.8±1.9 km s^-1 Mpc^-1. The result, taken on its own, agrees both with measurements of the cosmic microwave background and with nearby standard candles.

Red Giant Standard Candles

The standard candle Freedman and colleagues are using are red giant stars; specifically, red giant stars that have just made the transition from burning hydrogen to igniting helium.

“Think of it as scanning a crowd to identify the tallest person — that’s like the brightest red giant experiencing a helium flash,” says Christopher Burns (Observatories of the Carnegie Institution for Science). “If you lived in a world where you knew that the tallest person in any room would be that exact same height — as we assume that the brightest red giant’s peak brightness is the same — you could use that information to tell you how far away the tallest person is from you in any given crowd.”

Astronomers find these stars in galaxies’ outermost reaches, which means that there’s no intervening dust to affect observations. So red giant stars provide a way to measure distance that’s free of some of the systematic issues plaguing Cepheid stars and other standard candles.

Red giant stars in galaxy halos — Astronomers identified red giant stars in the halos of galaxies to measure their distances, which enabled them to deduce the current expansion rate of the universe.
*NASA / ESA / W. Freedman (Univ. of Chicago) / ESO / Digitized Sky Survey*

Unsettled

Nevertheless, as Freedman and colleagues point out in their paper, the near-far discrepancy remains. Even though their study gives a lower value of the Hubble constant, it’s still on the high end compared to studies of the early universe. If, say, 67.4 were truly the correct value of the Hubble constant, then statistically speaking you’d expect at least a couple measurements to be below it.

Hubble constants — The past decade or so has seen dozens of measurements of the Hubble constant, using sources near (in the box labeled "Late") and far (in the box labeled "Early"). There seems to be a discrepancy depending on whether the measurements are based on the early universe or the present-day universe, as seen in the box labeled "Early vs. Late," though the amount of discrepancy depends on which sources are used. Recent measurements by Freedman and colleagues are labeled "CCHP."
*Vivien Bonvin / HOLiCOW Team*

Adam Riess (Johns Hopkins University), who has led several recent studies of Cepheid variable stars, points out that a lot depends on how the red giant stars are calibrated. Freedman and colleagues anchor their observations in the Large Magellanic Cloud, where both Cepheid variables and red giant stars reside. Here, unlike in galaxy haloes, the astronomers must account for dust. Riess thinks the large amount of dust estimated by Freedman’s team may explain why their measurement of the Hubble constant is so low.

Ultimately, current measurements won’t settle the debate. Freedman and colleagues argue that to resolve the tension, astronomers must locally measure the Hubble constant to a precision better than 1%. That’s out of reach for now, but in just a couple years, the European Space Agency’s Gaia mission will be providing trustworthy and exquisitely precise distances to a heap of red giant stars, allowing a far better calibration than what is possible now. Perhaps then we’ll resolve the Hubble constant debate for once and for all.

Further reading: Find the full back story on the cosmic controversy surrounding the Hubble constant in the June 2019 issue of Sky & Telescope.

Comments

TorbjornLarsson

July 25, 2019 at 5:34 am

The TRGB team synthesis on observation trends and the HOLiCOW team on current observations is interesting. We can add two more.

The CMASS void measurements increase the precision of the early consensus to H0 = 67.67 ± 0.90 km s^−1 Mpc^−1 [ https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.01030.pdf ].

The fully independent, single event and large uncertainty GW170817 updated jet model Hubble rate gives us two choices, the publication choice of scanning over jets with H0 = 70.3 + 5.3 - 5.0, or models scanning over cosmological parameters of 68.1 +4.5 -4.3 and .68.3 +4.4 -4.3 km s^-1 Mpc^-1 respectively [ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-019-0820-1 ].

Seeing how the new, and more independent observations - TRGB, voids, GW170817 - cluster H0 in the 68 - 70 km s^−1 Mpc^−1 region, the trend does not call for new physics, I think, it is still within 5 sigma or 4.5 from the 67.8 km s^−1 Mpc^−1 latest standard consensus. If the trend goes above 72.3, the consensus is screwed I take it - but hopefully not by new physics as much as a need to adjust. The Planck team looked at new physics in the 2018 last cosmological parameter synthesis, and that looks iffy.