Gravitational Lensing, Cosmological Distances and the Hubble Constant

To continue the ongoing Hubble constant theme, there is an interesting paper on the arXiv by Shajib et al. about determining a distance to a gravitational lens system; I grabbed the above pretty picture from the paper.

The abstract is:

 

You can click on this to make it bigger. You will see that this approach gives a `high’ value of H0 ≈ 74.2, consistent with local stellar distances measures, rather than with the `cosmological’ value which comes in around H0 ≈ 67 or so. It’s also consistent with the value derived from other gravitational lens studies discussed here.

Here’s my ongoing poll on the Hubble constant, with

 

 

3 Responses to “Gravitational Lensing, Cosmological Distances and the Hubble Constant”

  1. “You will see that this approach gives a `high’ value of H0 ≈ 74.2, consistent with local stellar distances measures, rather than with the `cosmological’ value which comes in around H0 ≈ 67 or so. It’s also consistent with the value derived from other gravitational lens studies discussed here.”

    Perhaps not surprising, as, compared to the CMB, such measurements are “local”.

  2. From some related discussion (my emphasis):

    > The preprint is 1909.06712

    Two additional preprints are at
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04869 and
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.06306
    These report direct measurements of gravitational lens distances rather than a recalibration of the standard distance ladder.

    The lead author Shajib of 06306 spoke here today and showed an updated version of Fig 12 of the 04869 preprint. The upshot is that the discrepancy between the local and the CMB measurements of H_0 is between 4 and 5.7 sigma, depending on how conservative one wants to be about assumptions. The impression I got is that either there’s a systematic error somewhere or there’s new physics. The local H_0 is based on two independent methods — distance ladder and lensing — so big systematic errors in local H_0 seem unlikely. The CMB H_0 is based on Planck with WMAP having given an H_0 value more consistent with the local one. “New physics” could be something as simple as time-varying dark energy, but for now it’s too soon to say much.

    One other note from the talk: it takes an expert modeler about 8 months to a year to model a single lens system. Shajib and others are trying to automate the modeling, but until that’s done, measuring a large sample of lenses will be labor-intensive. Even then, it will be cpu-intensive. Shahib mentioned 1 million cpu-hours for his model of DES J0408-53545354, and about 40 lenses are
    needed to give the desired precision of local H_0.

  3. From some related discussion (my emphasis, and slightly edited so that there is only one link):

    > The preprint is 1909.06712

    Two additional preprints are at
    1907.04869 and
    1910.06306
    These report direct measurements of gravitational lens distances rather than a recalibration of the standard distance ladder.

    The lead author Shajib of 06306 spoke here today and showed an updated version of Fig 12 of the 04869 preprint. The upshot is that the discrepancy between the local and the CMB measurements of H_0 is between 4 and 5.7 sigma, depending on how conservative one wants to be about assumptions. The impression I got is that either there’s a systematic error somewhere or there’s new physics. The local H_0 is based on two independent methods — distance ladder and lensing — so big systematic errors in local H_0 seem unlikely. The CMB H_0 is based on Planck with WMAP having given an H_0 value more consistent with the local one. “New physics” could be something as simple as time-varying dark energy, but for now it’s too soon to say much.

    One other note from the talk: it takes an expert modeler about 8 months to a year to model a single lens system. Shajib and others are trying to automate the modeling, but until that’s done, measuring a large sample of lenses will be labor-intensive. Even then, it will be cpu-intensive. Shahib mentioned 1 million cpu-hours for his model of DES J0408-53545354, and about 40 lenses are
    needed to give the desired precision of local H_0.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: