Paper detail

Concordance Cosmology?

We propose a new intuitive metric for evaluating the tension between two experiments, and apply it to several data sets. While our metric is non-optimal, if evidence of tension is detected, this evidence is robust and easy to interpret. Assuming a flat $Λ$CDM cosmological model, we find that there is a modest $2.2σ$ tension between the DES Year 1 results and the ${\it Planck}$ measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). This tension is driven by the difference between the amount of structure observed in the late-time Universe and that predicted from fitting the ${\it Planck}$ data, and appears to be unrelated to the tension between ${\it Planck}$ and local esitmates of the Hubble rate. In particular, combining DES, Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO), Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), and supernovae (SNe) measurements recovers a Hubble constant and sound horizon consistent with ${\it Planck}$, and in tension with local distance-ladder measurements. If the tension between these various data sets persists, it is likely that reconciling ${\it all}$ current data will require breaking the flat $Λ$CDM model in at least two different ways: one involving new physics in the early Universe, and one involving new late-time Universe physics.

preprint2019arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.