{"title":"The Hubble Constant","authors":"Neal Jackson","doi":"10.1007/lrr-2015-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>I review the current state of determinations of the Hubble constant, which gives the length scale of the Universe by relating the expansion velocity of objects to their distance. There are two broad categories of measurements. The first uses individual astrophysical objects which have some property that allows their intrinsic luminosity or size to be determined, or allows the determination of their distance by geometric means. The second category comprises the use of all-sky cosmic microwave background, or correlations between large samples of galaxies, to determine information about the geometry of the Universe and hence the Hubble constant, typically in a combination with other cosmological parameters. Many, but not all, object-based measurements give <i>H</i><sub>0</sub> values of around 72–74 km s<sup>?1</sup> Mpc<sup>?1</sup>, with typical errors of 2–3 km s<sup>?1</sup> Mpc<sup>?1</sup>. This is in mild discrepancy with CMB-based measurements, in particular those from the <i>Planck</i> satellite, which give values of 67–68 km s<sup>?1</sup> Mpc<sup>?1</sup> and typical errors of 1–2 km s<sup>?1</sup> Mpc<sup>?1</sup>. The size of the remaining systematics indicate that accuracy rather than precision is the remaining problem in a good determination of the Hubble constant. Whether a discrepancy exists, and whether new physics is needed to resolve it, depends on details of the systematics of the object-based methods, and also on the assumptions about other cosmological parameters and which datasets are combined in the case of the all-sky methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":686,"journal":{"name":"Living Reviews in Relativity","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":26.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/lrr-2015-2","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Living Reviews in Relativity","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/lrr-2015-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23
Abstract
I review the current state of determinations of the Hubble constant, which gives the length scale of the Universe by relating the expansion velocity of objects to their distance. There are two broad categories of measurements. The first uses individual astrophysical objects which have some property that allows their intrinsic luminosity or size to be determined, or allows the determination of their distance by geometric means. The second category comprises the use of all-sky cosmic microwave background, or correlations between large samples of galaxies, to determine information about the geometry of the Universe and hence the Hubble constant, typically in a combination with other cosmological parameters. Many, but not all, object-based measurements give H0 values of around 72–74 km s?1 Mpc?1, with typical errors of 2–3 km s?1 Mpc?1. This is in mild discrepancy with CMB-based measurements, in particular those from the Planck satellite, which give values of 67–68 km s?1 Mpc?1 and typical errors of 1–2 km s?1 Mpc?1. The size of the remaining systematics indicate that accuracy rather than precision is the remaining problem in a good determination of the Hubble constant. Whether a discrepancy exists, and whether new physics is needed to resolve it, depends on details of the systematics of the object-based methods, and also on the assumptions about other cosmological parameters and which datasets are combined in the case of the all-sky methods.
期刊介绍:
Living Reviews in Relativity is a peer-reviewed, platinum open-access journal that publishes reviews of research across all areas of relativity. Directed towards the scientific community at or above the graduate-student level, articles are solicited from leading authorities and provide critical assessments of current research. They offer annotated insights into key literature and describe available resources, maintaining an up-to-date suite of high-quality reviews, thus embodying the "living" aspect of the journal's title.
Serving as a valuable tool for the scientific community, Living Reviews in Relativity is often the first stop for researchers seeking information on current work in relativity. Written by experts, the reviews cite, explain, and assess the most relevant resources in a given field, evaluating existing work and suggesting areas for further research.
Attracting readers from the entire relativity community, the journal is useful for graduate students conducting literature surveys, researchers seeking the latest results in unfamiliar fields, and lecturers in need of information and visual materials for presentations at all levels.