4.7 Article

On the Hubble Constant Tension in the SNe Ia Pantheon Sample

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 912, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/abeb73

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By analyzing the tension between Type Ia supernovae and Planck measurements regarding the Hubble constant, it was found that the Hubble constant evolves with redshift, showing a slowly decreasing trend. This trend may be attributed to astrophysical selection effects or modified gravity.
The Hubble constant (H-0) tension between Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) and Planck measurements ranges from 4 to 6 sigma. To investigate this tension, we estimate H-0 in the Lambda CDM and w(0)w(a)CDM (cold dark matter) models by dividing the Pantheon sample, the largest compilation of SNe Ia, into 3, 4, 20, and 40 bins. We fit the extracted H-0 values with a function mimicking the redshift evolution: g(z) = H-0 (z) = (H) over tilde (0)/(1 + z)(alpha), where alpha indicates an evolutionary parameter and (H) over tilde (0) = H-0 at z = 0. We set the absolute magnitude of SNe Ia so that H-0 = 73.5 km s(-1) Mpc(-1), and we fix fiducial values for Omega(Lambda CDM)(0m) = 0.298 and Omega(w0,waCDM)(0m) = 0.308. We find that H-0 evolves with redshift, showing a slowly decreasing trend, with alpha coefficients consistent with zero only from 1.2 to 2.0 sigma. Although the alpha coefficients are compatible with zero in 3 sigma, this however may affect cosmological results. We measure locally a variation of H-0 (z = 0) - H-0 (z = 1) = 0.4 km s(-1) Mpc(-1) in three and four bins. Extrapolating H-0 (z) to z = 1100, the redshift of the last scattering surface, we obtain values of H-0 compatible in 1 sigma with Planck measurements independent of the cosmological models and number of bins we investigated. Thus, we have reduced the H-0 tension in the range from 54% to 72% for both cosmological models. If the decreasing trend of H-0 (z) is real, it could be due to astrophysical selection effects or to modified gravity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据