3 ms·
> our cosmic distance ladder calculations seem to have been very good Not according to at least one research group described in the article: the Freedman group
by pdonis 2y ago
> our cosmic distance ladder calculations seem to have been very good
Not according to at least one research group described in the article: the Freedman group, which is only getting the higher answer using Cepheids, but gets a lower answer, one consistent with the CMBR calculations, by two other methods. Which raises the possibility that it's the Cepheid part of the cosmic distance ladder that's the problem.
- chongli 2y agoRight, but that's been Freedman's project all along. Riess is continuing to publish results consistent with a higher H0 including both Cepheids and TRGB stars. Perhaps we need some outside groups to take a look at this to see if either group is making systematic errors in their analyses.
- pdonis 2y ago> Perhaps we need some outside groups to take a look at this to see if either group is making systematic errors in their analyses. I agree this would be a good thing.
- pmayrgundter 2y agoHere's a 25 video critique on the CMB projects by Pierre Robiteille https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnU8XK0C8oTDaiwe8Us_YNl4Kjmt8ceRD&si=EysmA5zaH7MtQMs6 https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnU8XK0C8oTDaiwe8Us_YNl4K... He also has an alternative theory for stellar physics that might call into question the interpretation of Cepheids and SNs, tho I don't think he's done a major analysis there, at least afaik