Paper detail

Residual Hubble-bubble effects on supernova cosmology

Even in a universe that is homogeneous on large scales, local density fluctuations can imprint a systematic signature on the cosmological inferences we make from distant sources. One example is the effect of a local under-density on supernova cosmology. Also known as a Hubble-bubble, it has been suggested that a large enough under-density could account for the supernova magnitude- redshift relation without the need for dark energy or acceleration. Although the size and depth of under-density required for such an extreme result is extremely unlikely to be a random fluctuation in an on-average homogeneous universe, even a small under-density can leave residual effects on our cosmological inferences. In this paper we show that there remain systematic shifts in our cosmological parameter measure- ments, even after excluding local supernovae that are likely to be within any small Hubble-bubble. We study theoretically the low-redshift cutoff typically imposed by supernova cosmology analyses, and show that a low-redshift cut of z0 \sim 0.02 may be too low based on the observed inhomogeneity in our local universe. Neglecting to impose any low-redshift cutoff can have a significant effect on the cosmological pa- rameters derived from supernova data. A slight local under-density, just 30% under-dense with scale 70h^{-1} Mpc, causes an error in the inferred cosmological constant density ΩΛ of \sim 4%. Imposing a low-redshift cutoff reduces this systematic error but does not remove it entirely. A residual systematic shift of 0.99% remains in the inferred value ΩΛ even when neglecting all data within the currently pre- ferred low-redshift cutoff of 0.02. Given current measurement uncertainties this shift is not negligible, and will need to be accounted for when future measurements yield higher precision.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.