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

preprint2021arXivOpen access

Abstract

We revisit the degeneracy between the Hubble constant, H0H_0, and matter density, ΩmΩ_m, for current cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations within the standard ΛCDMΛCDM 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 xx from minimizing the variance of the product ΩmH0xΩ_mH_0^x. The distribution of xx from the different data sets does not follow the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) best-fit values for H0H_0 or ΩmΩ_m. Particularly striking is the difference between Planck multipoles ℓ≤800\ell\leq800 (x=2.81x=2.81), and WMAP (x=2.94x = 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 ΛCDMΛCDM given the multipole coverage and power spectrum uncertainties for each experiment. We show that the difference in xx from the Planck ℓ≤800\ell \leq 800 and WMAP data is explained by a turning point in the relationship between xx and the maximum effective multipole, at around ℓ=700\ell=700. The value of xx is determined by several physical effects, and we highlight the significant impact of gravitational lensing for the high-multipole measurements. Despite the spread of H0H_0 values from different CMB experiments, the experiments are consistent with their sampling of the Ωm−H0Ω_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 Ωm−H0Ω_m-H_0 degeneracy of future experiments.

Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.

Building this map preview

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

Reviews 0

Write a reviewWrite

No reviews yet.

Discussion 0

Add a commentWrite

No comments yet.