http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.08974
The most stringent local measurement of the Hubble constant from Cepheid-calibrated Type Ia supernovae (SNe~Ia) differs from the value inferred via the cosmic microwave background radiation ({\it Planck}$+\Lambda$CDM) by more than 5$\sigma$. This so-called “Hubble tension” has been confirmed by other independent methods, and thus does not appear to be a possible consequence of systematic errors. Here, we continue upon our prior work of using Type II supernovae to provide another, largely-independent method to measure the Hubble constant. From 13 SNe~II with geometric, Cepheid, or tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) host-galaxy distance measurements, we derive H$0= 75.4^{+3.8}{-3.7}$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ (statistical errors only), consistent with the local measurement but in disagreement by $\sim 2.0\sigma$ with the Planck $+\Lambda$CDM value. Using only Cepheids ($N=7$), we find H$0 = 77.6^{+5.2}{-4.8}$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, while using only TRGB ($N=5$), we derive H$0 = 73.1^{+5.7}{-5.3}$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. Via 13 variants of our dataset, we derive a systematic uncertainty estimate of 1.5 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. The median value derived from these variants differs by just 0.3 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ from that produced by our fiducial model. Because we only replace SNe~Ia with SNe~II — and we do not find tension between the Cepheid and TRGB H$_0$ measurements — our work reveals no indication that SNe~Ia or Cepheids could be the sources of the “H$_0$ tension.” We caution, however, that our conclusions rest upon a modest calibrator sample; as this sample grows in the future, our results should be verified.
T. Jaeger, L. Galbany, A. Riess, et. al.
Fri, 18 Mar 22
50/66
Comments: 10 pages, 4 figures, 2 tables. Submitted to the MNRAS. Comments are welcome!
You must be logged in to post a comment.