After a break due to important deadlines, this week I cover an interesting trend in the values of the Hubble constant inferred from CMB E-mode data alone, a proposal to solve the Hubble tension based on the chameleon mechanism, and an exact solution to the Friedmann equation in the simultaneous presence of radiation, matter, and dark energy. Enjoy the read, have a nice weekend!
#1 2102.00028: High H0 Values from CMB E-mode Data: A Clue for Resolving the Hubble Tension? by Graeme Addison
There is an intriguing trend which was recently reported in the latest SPT-3G paper 2101.01684, and specifically in their Fig. 13, which I copy below. What happens if one takes CMB data and, rather than analyzing the usual combination of temperature, (E- and B-mode) polarization, and cross-correlations between the two, one only analyzes the E-mode auto-correlation spectra (EE hereafter)? Focusing on Planck 2018 (1807.06209), ACT DR4 (2007.07288), SPTpol (1707.09353), and SPT-3G (2101.01684), the Figure clearly shows that EE data from all these independent experiments prefer a somewhat higher value of the Hubble constant H0. Specifically, in the same order as I quoted them above, these experiments give H0 roughly =70.0±2.7; 72.4±4.4; 73.1±3.6; and 76.4±4.1, all assuming LCDM of course. Notice also the relatively large error bars. I’m not sure if the ordering of the experiments in the Figure reflects some intrinsic ordering e.g. in terms of sky fraction observed, though if that were the case it would certainly be an even more intriguing trend (something along the lines of the last line of the abstract of 2101.07368?).
The question Addison asks in this week’s paper is: are these high H0 values from EE data alone hinting to something else? Perhaps a clue for resolving the Hubble tension with a model which impacts temperature and polarization differently? Or perhaps some systematics issue we must understand more before moving forward? To answer this question Addison combines Planck, ACT DR4, and SPTpol data (as representative for SPT-3G, since the likelihood for the latter is not yet publicly available). If you would expect the combination of the three to return a high H0 at much higher significance than the three experiments taken individually, you will be surprised by the final result, which returns H0=68.7±1.3. The reason is essentially different degeneracy directions across the full parameter space (in particular involving the physical baryon density Obh2 and the scalar spectral index ns) which arise from the sensitivity of each experiment to different multipole ranges (see a related discussion in my 2020 Week 29 post in relation to the ACT DR4 results and corresponding slight tension with Planck).
This result highlights the danger of focusing simply on one direction of parameter space (even more so if the parameter in question is a derived one!), something we too often do in the field. Addison also goes on to show that the three datasets are mutually compatible (in agreement within at worst ~1.4σ), so the low H0 is not driven by a possible tension between these measurements. There is only one particular direction in parameter space where Planck and SPTpol disagree, and that is in the power spectrum amplitude A_s*e^(-2*tau), which could be indicating some calibration issue in one of the two experiments (possibly SPTpol?). This is something which would be “addressed” if one used SPT-3G instead of SPTpol, although for the hardly surprising reason that their calibration was performed against the full-sky Planck spectra (so by construction it is consistent). The conclusions of this paper are best expressed in Addison’s words: “Based on our results, the preference for higher H0 values from the separate EE measurements seems more likely to be due to chance fluctuations than the first hint of systematic differences in preferred parameters from, for example, the TT data. […] New theoretical models that impact the TT and EE spectra differently may yet be promising for resolving the Hubble disagreement” (food for thought for theorists).
#2 2102.02020: Chameleon dark energy can resolve the Hubble tension by Rong-Gen Cai, Zong-Kuan Guo, Li Li, Shao-Jiang Wang, and Wang-Wei Yu (alphabetical)
The usual argument which I’ve often quoted in this blog according to which the Hubble tension calls for a pre-recombination solution because BAO and Hubble flow SNeIa data want it that way, is based on the implicit assumption that the expansion of the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic: in other words, that once we’ve got the large-scale model of the Universe right (be it LCDM, early dark energy, phantom dark energy, or whatever you want), the local H0 value and the one measured by other probes (BAO, Hubble flow SNeIa, cosmic chronometers, and so on) should be one and the same. But if one breaks this assumption, then there is of course space for a whole new rich class of late-time resolutions to the Hubble tension. This paper considers a possibility based on the so-called chameleon mechanism, first proposed by Khoury and Weltman in astro-ph/0309300 (see also my 2020 Week 22 post, where I discussed a chameleonic paper by two of the authors). The chameleon mechanism works by coupling a scalar field to the local matter density, so that its effective mass changes according to the environment (hence the name chameleon). Usually one wants the effective mass to be larger in denser environments, in such a way as to screen eventual fifth forces in the regime where we know that Newtonian gravity works well.
In the context of the Hubble tension, the way this mechanism would operate is by ensuring that the chameleon is locally trapped in a local (20%) matter overdensity, which effectively leads to a higher local cosmological constant, as shown in the Figure below (which is the left panel of Fig. 1 of the paper). Correspondingly, the local expansion rate is faster than the background one measured by BAO, Hubble flow SNeIa, and cosmic chronometers, thereby accommodating the higher local value of H0 while not conflicting with these measurements. The philosophy of this mechanism is similar in spirit to similar mechanisms explored by Jeremy Sakstein and Harry Desmond recently, see e.g. 1907.03778 and 2003.12876 (the latter covered in my 2020 Week 14 post), though the technical details are different - these other papers essentially invoke a mismatch in the local distance ladder (Cepheid or TRGB) calibration due to the effect of screened fifth forces.
The paper claims that this higher local expansion rate can be obtained by coupling the chameleon to Great-Wall overdensities discovered in large-scale structure surveys such as SDSS (in this respect the authors confront their model against BOSS DR12 and eBOSS DR14 maps to back up this claim). I can’t comment on this last point due to lack of expertise but, if correct, this would of course be very interesting. One thing I still haven’t managed to wrap my head around is whether the proposed model can really accelerate the Universe (i.e. be a legitimate dark energy model) while being consistent with the chameleon no-go theorem of 1208.4612, which essentially rules out regions of chameleon parameter space which lead to self-acceleration (in the sense of acceleration due to coupling of the chameleon to matter, and not to quintessence-like effects), due to the fact that the Milky Way has to be screened. If you are reading this post and have any thoughts on the matter, please let me know and leave a comment below!
#3 2102.01637: Precision cosmology made more precise by Giorgio Galanti and Marco Roncadelli (alphabetical)
The usual approach presented to us in cosmology courses towards solving the Friedmann equations in the presence of “standard” components such as radiation, matter, and dark energy, solves for the scale factor as a function of time a(t) deep inside each of the eras where only one of the components dominates. This leads to the very well-known results that during radiation domination a(t)~t^(1/2), during matter domination a(t)~t^(2/3), and during dark energy domination a(t)~e^t if dark energy is a cosmological constant. One can then find a piece-wise solution which matches these three regimes, with appropriate coefficients to make sure that the resulting a(t) is continuous. This piece-wise solution would truly hold only deep inside these eras, and is bound to break down when the energy densities of two of the components become comparable, for instance during matter-radiation equality, or matter-dark energy equality. Approximate solutions exist even in the presence of two components without requiring that one dominates over the other, though they are usually discussed rather hastily. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge and mine, a full complete and exact analytical solution for a(t) in the presence of the three “standard” components is lacking.
Finding such a solution is the goal of this paper. The authors achieve this in Eq.(20), which is of course very complicated as one perhaps could have expected. They then compare their full solution to the piece-wise solution I previously mentioned to determine the discrepancy between the two (with the two solutions agreeing at present time by construction). The result is shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 1 and perhaps more illuminatingly in Table 1, where the authors report that the maximum fractional difference in the scale factor between the exact and piece-wise solutions is the latter underestimating the former by ~15% deep within the matter-dominated era. Of course I found this paper very interesting (else I wouldn’t have reported it in my blog), though I think it is interesting mostly for pedagogical purposes. In practice, within all realistic situations of interest (I’m thinking mostly about Boltzmann solvers), the Friedmann equation is not solved in a piece-wise way but numerically, and I would guess that the numerical solution approximates the authors’ exact analytical one very closely. But still, showing that such a full complete and exact analytical solution for a(t) as given by Eq.(20) exists is very interesting in its own right.