Hubble tensions: a historical statistical analysis

Abstract

Statistical analyses of the measurements of the Hubble-Lemaître constant $H_0$ (163 measurements between 1976 and 2019) show that the statistical error bars associated with the observed parameter measurements have been underestimated -- or the systematic errors were not properly taken into account -- in at least 15-20\% of the measurements. The fact that the underestimation of error bars for $H_0$ is so common might explain the apparent discrepancy of values, which is formally known today as the Hubble tension. Here we have carried out a recalibration of the probabilities with this sample of measurements. We find that $x\sigma$ deviation is indeed equivalent in a normal distribution to $x_{eq.}\sigma$s deviation in the frequency of values, where $x_{eq.}=0.83x^{0.62}$. Hence, a tension of 4.4$\sigma$, estimated between the local Cepheid-supernova distance ladder and cosmic microwave background (CMB) data, is indeed a 2.1$\sigma$ tension in equivalent terms of a normal distribution of frequencies, with an associated probability $P(>x_{eq.})=0.036$ (1 in 28). This can be increased up to a equivalent tension of 2.5$\sigma$ in the worst of the cases of claimed 6$\sigma$ tension, which may anyway happen as a random statistical fluctuation.

accepted to be published in MNRAS

References in corpus (6)

• Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics Beyond LambdaCDM
• New period-luminosity and period-color relations of classical Cepheids: III. Cepheids in SMC
• Gravitational energy as dark energy: Concordance of cosmological tests
• Some doubts on the validity of the foreground Galactic contribution subtraction from microwave anisotropies
• Asymmetry of the CMB map: local and global anomalies
• Testing for foreground residuals in the Planck foreground cleaned maps: A new method for designing confidence masks