Relativity and Cosmology


Resolving the Tension Between Planck H0=66.931 and Riess et al H0=73.242

Authors: Bruce Wallman

There is an open question in cosmology about the significance of the difference between the 2016 Planck collaboration value H0=66.93±0.62 km/s/Mpc and the 2016 Riess et al value H0=73.24±1.74 km/s/Mpc. This paper shows that both the Planck collaboration and Riess et al values are valid. Tracing the cosmological redshift z from SN1a several thousand megaparsecs in the past to those that exploded closer to today describes an increase in our perception of Hv as distance to us lessens. A best fit power function of vr=73.227*Dp0.9907 for recessional velocity versus proper distance (where vr is recessional velocity and Dp is proper distance) is derived connecting these two values of H0 using 1836 SN1a in the NED database3. Taking the derivative of this formula to get Hubble slope gives the power function Hv=dvr/dDp= 72.546*Dp -0.0093. When this formula is used to describe an extrapolation of the universe from near the Milky Way galaxy to the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), it describes a change of about 7 km/s/Mpc in the Hubble value for the observable universe increasing smoothly from 66.4 for our measures at the CMB to 73.4 km/s/Mpc locally as the universe expands. Most of the increase occurs in the last 1000 Mpc as was stated in Riess, Perlmutter, and subsequent SN1a studies. This is consistent with ΛCDM cosmology4. After converting distance in megaparsecs to light-seconds, it is possible to show Hv is an acceleration that varies from 6.45 angstrom/s/lt-s when measuring the CMB to 7.13 angstrom/s/lt-s in the local universe.

Comments: 7 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2019-06-08 07:29:57

Unique-IP document downloads: 7 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus