Source author record

Timothy Faerber

Timothy Faerber appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

1works
2topics
1close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

A Chi-Squared Analysis of the Measurements of Two Cosmological Parameters Over Time

The aim of this analysis was to determine whether or not the given error bars truly represented the dispersion of values in a historical compilation of two cosmological parameters: the amplitude of mass fluctuations ($σ_8$) and Hubble's constant ($H_0$) parameters in the standard cosmological model. For this analysis, a chi-squared test was executed on a compiled list of past measurements. It was found through analysis of the chi-squared ($χ^2$) values of the data that for $σ_8$ (60 data points measured between 1993 and 2019 and $χ^2$ between 182.4 and 189.0) the associated probability Q is extremely low, with $Q = 1.6 \times 10^{-15}$ for the weighted average and $Q = 8.8 \times 10^{-15}$ for the best linear fit of the data. This was also the case for the $χ^2$ values of $H_0$ (163 data points measured between 1976 and 2019 and $χ^2$ between 480.1 and 575.7), where $Q = 1.8 \times 10^{-33}$ for the linear fit of the data and $Q = 1.0 \times 10^{-47}$ for the weighted average of the data. The general conclusion was that the statistical error bars associated with the observed parameter measurements have been underestimated or the systematic errors were not properly taken into account in at least 20\% of the measurements. The~fact that the underestimation of error bars for $H_0$ is so common might explain the apparent 4.4$σ$ discrepancy formally known today as the Hubble tension.