Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Perspective

TL;DR

This paper refines the measurement of the Hubble constant using the Tip of the Red Giant Branch method, finding results consistent with the cosmic microwave background and other calibrations, and discusses implications for cosmology.

Contribution

It provides a self-consistent TRGB calibration with Gaia EDR3 data and compares it with other methods, addressing the Hubble tension.

Findings

Hubble constant measured as 69.8 ± 1.7 km/s/Mpc

TRGB results are consistent with CMB and Cepheid calibrations

No evidence for new physics beyond Lambda-CDM

Abstract

Measurement of the distances to nearby galaxies have improved rapidly in recent decades. The ever-present challenge is to reduce systematic effects, especially as greater distances are probed, and the uncertainties become larger. In this paper, we combine several recent calibrations of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB) method. These calibrations are internally self-consistent at the 1% level. New Gaia Early Data Release 3 (EDR3) data provide an additional consistency check, at a (lower) 5% level of accuracy, a result of the well-documented Gaia angular covariance bias. The updated TRGB calibration applied to a distant sample of Type Ia supernovae from the Carnegie Supernova Project results in a value of the Hubble constant of Ho = 69.8 $\pm$ 0.6 (stat) $\pm$ 1.6 (sys) km/s/Mpc. No statistically significant difference is found between the value of Ho based on the TRGB and that determined from measurements of the cosmic microwave background. The TRGB results are also consistent to within 2$\sigma$ with the SHoES and Spitzer plus HST Key Project Cepheid calibrations. The TRGB results alone do not demand additional new physics beyond the standard Lambda-CDM cosmological model. They have the advantage of simplicity of the underlying physics (the core He flash) and small systematic uncertainties (from extinction, metallicity and crowding). Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of both the TRGB and Cepheids are reviewed, and prospects for addressing the current discrepancy with future Gaia, HST and JWST observations are discussed. Resolving this discrepancy is essential for ascertaining if the claimed tension in Ho between the locally-measured and the CMB-inferred value is physically motivated.