Paper detail

A tale of two double quasars: Hubble constant tension or biases?

For a flat $Λ$CDM (standard) cosmology, a small sample of gravitationally lensed quasars with measured time delays has recently provided a value of the Hubble constant $H_0$ in tension with the $Planck$ flat $Λ$CDM result. Trying to check if this tension is real or not, we used basic observational constraints for two double quasars of the GLENDAMA sample (SBS 0909+532 and SDSS J1339+1310) to discuss the underlying value of $H_0$ in a standard cosmology. For SBS 0909+532, we were not able to obtain a reliable measurement of $H_0$. However, the current data of SDSS J1339+1310 are consistent with $H_0$ around 67.8 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and $σ(H_0)/H_0 \sim$ 10%. Although the formal uncertainty is still large and mainly due to the lack of details on the mass density profile of the main lens galaxy, the central value of $H_0$ coincides with that of the TDCOSMO+SLACS collaboration (using gravitational lens systems) and is within the 1$σ$ interval from $Planck$ cosmic microwave background data. After getting these preliminary encouraging results through only one double quasar, we are currently planning to use several GLENDAMA systems to accurately measure the Hubble constant and put constraints on other cosmological parameters.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.