This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See credit lines of images or other third-party material in this article for license information.
Abstract
▪
The Hubble parameter, H0, is not an univocally defined quantity: It relates redshifts to distances in the near Universe, but it is also a key parameter of the ΛCDM standard cosmological model. As such, H0 affects several physical processes at different cosmic epochs and multiple observables. We have counted more than a dozen H0s that are expected to agree if (a) there are no significant systematics in the data and their interpretation and (b) the adopted cosmological model is correct.
▪
With few exceptions (proverbially confirming the rule), these determinations do not agree at high statistical significance; their values cluster around two camps: the low (68 km s1 Mpc1) and high (73 km s1 Mpc1) camps. It appears to be a matter of anchors. The shape of the Universe expansion history agrees with the model; it is the normalizations that disagree.
▪
Beyond systematics in the data/analysis, if the model is incorrect, there are only two viable ways to “fix” it: by changing the early time (z ≳ 1,100) physics and, thus, the early time normalization or by a global modification, possibly touching the model's fundamental assumptions (e.g., homogeneity, isotropy, gravity). None of these three options has the consensus of the community.
▪
The research community has been actively looking for deviations from ΛCDM for two decades; the one we might have found makes us wish we could put the genie back in the bottle.
GueguenM. 2023.. In Philosophy of Astrophysics: Stars Simulations, and the Struggle to Determine What is Out There, ed. N Mills Boyd, S De Baerdemaeker, K Heng, V Matarese , pp. 33–55. Cham, Switz:.: Springer