REVIEW 2 cited by
Cosmic variance and the measurement of the local Hubble parameter
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
There is an approximately 9% discrepancy, corresponding to 2.4sigma, between two independent constraints on the expansion rate of the universe: one indirectly arising from the cosmic microwave background and baryon acoustic oscillations, and one more directly obtained from local measurements of the relation between redshifts and distances to sources. We argue that by taking into account the local gravitational potential at the position of the observer this tension - strengthened by the recent Planck results - is partially relieved and the concordance of the standard model of cosmology increased. We estimate that measurements of the local Hubble constant are subject to a cosmic variance of about 2.4% (limiting the local sample to redshifts z>0.010) or 1.3% (limiting it to z>0.023), a more significant correction than that taken into account already. Nonetheless, we show that one would need a very rare fluctuation to fully explain the offset in the Hubble rates. If this tension is further strengthened, a cosmology beyond the standard model may prove necessary.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Uncertainties in the Hubble Constant from Peculiar Velocities
Peculiar velocity corrections from the 2M++ density field add roughly 0.3 km/s/Mpc to the uncertainty in the local Hubble constant, a small part of the total error budget.
-
Impact of inhomogeneous curvature on growth rate measurements from magnitude fluctuations
Full-GR simulations find that inhomogeneous curvature produces only sub-dominant systematic offsets in growth-rate measurements from magnitude fluctuations at z ≲ 0.2 relative to current statistical errors.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.