4.4 Review

In the realm of the Hubble tension-a review of solutions *

期刊

CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM GRAVITY
卷 38, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6382/ac086d

关键词

cosmological parameters; cosmology; dark energy; Hubble constant

资金

  1. Addison-Wheeler Fellowship - Institute of Advanced Study at Durham University
  2. Spanish Grants [FPA2017-85985-P, PROMETEO/2019/083]
  3. European ITN project HIDDeN [H2020-MSCA-ITN-2019//860881-HIDDeN]
  4. Mathematical Research Impact-Centric Support Scheme of the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Govt. of India [MTR/2018/000940]
  5. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Grant [754496]
  6. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11705079, 11647153]
  7. Liaoning Revitalization Talents Program [XLYC1907098]
  8. TASP, iniziativa specifica INFN
  9. Research Council of Norway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are significant discrepancies in predictions of the Hubble constant, leading to various proposed solutions including new physics theories or modifications to existing cosmological models. Some solutions successfully reduce tension and improve agreement with data, while many others fail to do so, highlighting the need for further research and evidence.
The simplest ?CDM model provides a good fit to a large span of cosmological data but harbors large areas of phenomenology and ignorance. With the improvement of the number and the accuracy of observations, discrepancies among key cosmological parameters of the model have emerged. The most statistically significant tension is the 4 sigma to 6 sigma disagreement between predictions of the Hubble constant, H (0), made by the early time probes in concert with the 'vanilla' ?CDM cosmological model, and a number of late time, model-independent determinations of H (0) from local measurements of distances and redshifts. The high precision and consistency of the data at both ends present strong challenges to the possible solution space and demands a hypothesis with enough rigor to explain multiple observations-whether these invoke new physics, unexpected large-scale structures or multiple, unrelated errors. A thorough review of the problem including a discussion of recent Hubble constant estimates and a summary of the proposed theoretical solutions is presented here. We include more than 1000 references, indicating that the interest in this area has grown considerably just during the last few years. We classify the many proposals to resolve the tension in these categories: early dark energy, late dark energy, dark energy models with 6 degrees of freedom and their extensions, models with extra relativistic degrees of freedom, models with extra interactions, unified cosmologies, modified gravity, inflationary models, modified recombination history, physics of the critical phenomena, and alternative proposals. Some are formally successful, improving the fit to the data in light of their additional degrees of freedom, restoring agreement within 1-2 sigma between Planck 2018, using the cosmic microwave background power spectra data, baryon acoustic oscillations, Pantheon SN data, and R20, the latest SH0ES Team Riess, et al (2021 Astrophys. J. 908 L6) measurement of the Hubble constant (H (0) = 73.2 +/- 1.3 km s(-1) Mpc(-1) at 68% confidence level). However, there are many more unsuccessful models which leave the discrepancy well above the 3 sigma disagreement level. In many cases, reduced tension comes not simply from a change in the value of H (0) but also due to an increase in its uncertainty due to degeneracy with additional physics, complicating the picture and pointing to the need for additional probes. While no specific proposal makes a strong case for being highly likely or far better than all others, solutions involving early or dynamical dark energy, neutrino interactions, interacting cosmologies, primordial magnetic fields, and modified gravity provide the best options until a better alternative comes along.

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

4.4
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