Paper detail

Relativistic corrections for measuring Hubble's constant to 1% using stellar standard candles

Relativistic corrections are estimated for classical Cepheids and the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB stars), to enable future unbiased 1% measurements of Hubble&#39;s constant, $H_0$. We considered four effects: $K-$corrections, time-dilation, the apparent change of host dust extinction due to non-comoving reference frames, and the change of observed color due to redshift. Extinction-dependent $K-$corrections were computed using stellar atmosphere models applicable to giant stars for $0.005 < z < 0.03$ in HST, JWST, and 2MASS filters. The optical-NIR Wesenheit function advantageously combines filters with oppositely signed $K-$corrections and avoids complications due to host extinction. For TRGB stars, the JWST/NIRCAM F277W filter combines insensitivity to reddening with $K-$corrections $<1$% at Coma cluster distances. Missing corrections for host extinction due to circumgalactic or circumstellar material are discussed as potential systematics for TRGB distances although their impacts are insufficient to explain differences between $H_0$ based on Cepheid or TRGB supernova calibrations. All stellar standard candles require relativistic corrections to achieve an unbiased 1% $H_0$ measurement in the future. The combined relativistic correction involving $K$, redshift-Leavitt bias, and the redshift-dependence of the Wesenheit function yield an increase of the Cepheid-based $H_0$ by $0.45 \pm 0.05$ km/s/Mpc to $73.65 \pm 1.30$ km/s/Mpc and raises the tension with the {\it Planck} value from $4.2σ$ to $4.4σ$. For TRGB stars, we estimate a $\sim 0.5\%$ increase of $H_0$ reported by Freedman et al. (to $70.2\pm1.7$km/s/Mpc) and a small decrease by $-0.15\%$ for $H_0$ reported by Anand et al. (to $71.4 \pm 1.8$km/s/Mpc). The opposite sign of these corrections is due to different reddening systematics and reduces the difference between the studies by $\sim 0.46$km/s/Mpc.[abridged]

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.