Paper detail

Quantifying the CMB Degeneracy Between the Matter Density and Hubble Constant in Current Experiments

We revisit the degeneracy between the Hubble constant, $H_0$, and matter density, $Ω_m$, for current cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations within the standard $ΛCDM$ model. We show that Planck, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), South Pole Telescope (SPT), and Atacama Cosmology Telescope Polarimeter (ACTPol) temperature power spectra produce different values of the exponent $x$ from minimizing the variance of the product $Ω_mH_0^x$. The distribution of $x$ from the different data sets does not follow the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) best-fit values for $H_0$ or $Ω_m$. Particularly striking is the difference between Planck multipoles $\ell\leq800$ ($x=2.81$), and WMAP ($x = 2.94$), despite very similar best-fit cosmologies. We use a Fisher matrix analysis to show that, in fact, this range in exponent values is exactly as expected in $ΛCDM$ given the multipole coverage and power spectrum uncertainties for each experiment. We show that the difference in $x$ from the Planck $\ell \leq 800$ and WMAP data is explained by a turning point in the relationship between $x$ and the maximum effective multipole, at around $\ell=700$. The value of $x$ is determined by several physical effects, and we highlight the significant impact of gravitational lensing for the high-multipole measurements. Despite the spread of $H_0$ values from different CMB experiments, the experiments are consistent with their sampling of the $Ω_m-H_0$ degeneracy and do not show evidence for the need for new physics or for the presence of significant underestimated systematics according to these tests. The Fisher calculations can be used to predict the $Ω_m-H_0$ degeneracy of future experiments.

preprint2021arXivOpen 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.