SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
New measurement of Hubble constant adds to cosmic mystery
New measurements of the rate of expansion of the universe, led by astronomers at the University of California, Davis, add to a growing mystery: Estimates of a fundamental constant made with different methods keep giving different results.
"There's a lot of excitement, a lot of mystification and from my point of view it's a lot of fun," said Chris Fassnacht, professor of physics at UC Davis and a member of the international SHARP/H0LICOW collaboration, which made the measurement using the W.M. Keck telescopes in Hawaii.
A paper about the work is published by the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
The Hubble constant describes the expansion of the universe, expressed in kilometers per second per megaparsec. It allows astronomers to figure out the size and age of the universe and the distances between objects.
Graduate student Geoff Chen, Fassnacht and colleagues looked at light from extremely distant galaxies that is distorted and split into multiple images by the lensing effect of galaxies (and their associated dark matter) between the source and Earth. By measuring the time delay for light to make its way by different routes through the foreground lens, the team could estimate the Hubble constant.
Using adaptive optics technology on the W.M. Keck telescopes in Hawaii, they arrived at an estimate of 76.8 kilometers per second per megaparsec. As a parsec is a bit over 30 trillion kilometers and a megaparsec is a million parsecs, that is an excruciatingly precise measurement. In 2017, the H0LICOW team published an estimate of 71.9, using the same method and data from the Hubble Space Telescope.
Journal Reference:
Geoff C-F Chen, et. al. A SHARP view of H0LiCOW: H0 from three time-delay gravitational lens systems with adaptive optics imaging. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2019; 490 (2): 1743 DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stz2547
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @05:35AM (5 children)
> As a parsec is a bit over 30 trillion kilometers and a megaparsec is a million parsecs, that is an excruciatingly precise measurement
How is 76.8 kilometers per second per 30 million trillion kilometers a precise measurement? I don't even see any error bars that would tell use the precision.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @07:08AM (3 children)
Well, next time maybe check the actual abstract or paper instead of asking someone to do a CTRL+F on them for you. That way you don't have to worry about missing the whole ± 2.6 kilometers per second per megaparsec confidence interval, which is literally mentioned every time they give the measurement between the quantity and the dimensions.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @10:13AM (2 children)
Ok, well I don't think they understand confidence intervals then. A 90% confidence interval means that 90% of intervals based on the same procedure will contain the value. It does not guarantee that the intervals are always near each other or anything like that, 10% of them could be half the correct value, or worse. Now, in some simple cases the confidence interval approximate a bayesian credible interval with flat prior... In those cases you don't have to worry about this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @08:17PM (1 child)
What in the world is "troll" about pointing out a misinterpretation of a confidence interval? This site is going to shit, someone wants to suppress all rational thought ahead of the 2020 US election so they can spew their drivel at each other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27 2019, @02:49AM
TFA: Here is the peer-reviewed measurement with its error bars.
1P: What are the measurement's error bars?
2P: Here are the error bars from TFA, try reading it next time.
1P: Oh, well despite not RTFA, I'm going to argue they don't understand error bars.
1P: Why did someone think my assertion based on nothing wouldn't advance the conversation?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Saturday October 26 2019, @12:26PM
|$H_{0}=82.8^{+9.4}_{-8.3}~\rm km\, s^{-1}\, Mpc^{-1}$| for PG 1115+080,
|$H_{0}=70.1^{+5.3}_{-4.5}~\rm km\, s^{-1}\, Mpc^{-1}$| for HE 0435−1223, and
|$H_{0}=77.0^{+4.0}_{-4.6}~\rm km\, s^{-1}\, Mpc^{-1}$| for RXJ 1131−1231.
The joint AO-only result for the three lenses is
|$H_{0}=75.6^{+3.2}_{-3.3}~\rm km\, s^{-1}\, Mpc^{-1}$|.
The joint result of the AO + HST analysis for the three lenses is
|$H_{0}=76.8^{+2.6}_{-2.6}~\rm km\, s^{-1}\, Mpc^{-1}$|.
So it's not that precise, it's best described as "highish seventies". When I was younger, I remember it was "lowish seventies", so I'm not sure the progress towards actual "precision" is that tangible.
And even when they're ramping up precision, it still says nothing about accuracy, as all that's presented with the rider: "All of these results assume a flat Λ cold dark matter cosmology with a uniform prior on Ωm in [0.05, 0.5] ...". And conclusions are only as good as the assumptions you base them on.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves