论文标题
对哈勃张力的锁定视角（SH0ES团队的评论）
A Lockdown Perspective on the Hubble Tension (with comments from the SH0ES team)
论文作者
论文摘要
这是我2020年7月17日在“哈勃紧张局势”上在剑桥举行的谈话的笔录。我回顾了RIESS和合作者对SH0的分析，并指出了一些内部矛盾，包括从两个主要几何距离锚点的头孢菌所推断的相对距离之间的差异，大型麦哲伦云（LMC）（LMC）和NGC 4258。答案是在SH0ES星系的头孢虫周期间隙关系的拦截中，系统偏置为0.1-0.15 mag。如Freedman和合作者对这种偏见解决了哈勃的张力，距离锚之间的张力，距离锚之间的张力以及SH0ES和红色巨型分支（TRGB）距离梯子的尖端之间的差异，这是由Freedman和合作者进行了测量和校准的。我表明，H0的TRGB和SH0ES值之间的差异主要是由系统的校准偏移引起的。在短期内，观察努力应集中在改善距离锚和附近星系的校准上，而不是试图测量距离模量与更多超新星宿主星系。我认为对NGC 4258的独立距离估计特别重要。通过这样的观察，在相对较短的时间尺度上应该有可能确定是否存在哈勃张力。
This is a transcript of a talk that I gave in Cambridge on 17th July 2020 on the `Hubble tension'. I review the SH0ES analyses by Riess and collaborators and point out some internal inconsistencies, including a discrepancy between the relative distances inferred from Cepheids of two of the primary geometric distance anchors, the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) and NGC 4258. I then ask `what would it take to make SH0ES compatible with early time measurements?'. The answer is a systematic bias of 0.1 - 0.15 mag in the intercept of the Cepheid period-luminosity relations of SH0ES galaxies. Such a bias resolves the Hubble tension, the tension between the distance anchors, and the difference between SH0ES and the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) distance ladder, as measured and calibrated by Freedman and collaborators. I show that the difference between the TRGB and SH0ES values of H0 is caused mainly by a systematic calibration offset. In the short term, observational efforts should be focussed on improving the calibrations of the distance anchors and nearby galaxies, rather than trying to measure distance moduli to more supernovae host galaxies. I argue that an independent distance estimate to NGC 4258 is particularly critical. With such observations, it should be possible, on a relatively short timescale, to establish definitively whether the Hubble tension really exists.
