The JWST Looked Over the Hubble’s Shoulder and Confirmed that the Universe is Expanding Faster
These 36 galaxies all contain Type 1a supernovae and Cepheid variables. They serve as standard distance markers used to measure how fast the Universe is expanding. Image Credit: NASA, ESA, Adam G. Riess (STScI, JHU)
It’s axiomatic that the Universe is expanding. However, the rate of expansion hasn’t remained the same. It appears that the Universe is expanding more quickly now than it did in the past.
Astronomers have struggled to understand this and have wondered if the apparent acceleration is due to instrument errors. The JWST has put that question to rest.
American astronomer Edwin Hubble is widely credited with discovering the expansion of the Universe. But it actually stemmed from relativity equations and was pioneered by Russian scientist Alexander Freedman. Hubble’s Law bears Edwin’s name, though, and he was the one who confirmed the expansion, called Hubble’s constant, and put a more precise value to it. It measures how rapidly galaxies that aren’t gravitationally bound are moving away from one another. The movement of objects due solely to the Hubble constant is called the Hubble flow.
Measuring the Hubble constant means measuring distances to far-flung objects. Astronomers use the cosmic distance ladder (CDL) to do that. However, the ladder has a problem.
The first rungs on the CDL are fundamental measurements that can be observed directly. Parallax measurement is the most important fundamental measurement. But the method breaks down at great distances.
Beyond that, astronomers use standard candles, things with known intrinsic brightness, like supernovae and Cepheid variables. Those objects and their relationships help astronomers measure distances to other galaxies. This has been tricky to measure, though advancing technology has made progress.
Another pair of problems plagues the effort, though. The first is that different telescopes and methods produce different distance measurements. The second is that our measurements of distances and expansion don’t match up with the Standard Model of Cosmology, also known as the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) model. That discrepancy is called the Hubble tension.
The question is, can the mismatch between the measurements and the LCDM be explained by instrument differences? That possibility has to be eliminated, and the trick is to take one large set of distance measurements from one telescope and compare them to another.
New research in The Astrophysical Journal tackles the problem by comparing Hubble Space Telescope measurements with JWST measurements. It’s titled “JWST Validates HST Distance Measurements: Selection of Supernova Subsample Explains Differences in JWST Estimates of Local H0.” The lead author is Adam Riess, a Bloomberg Distinguished Professor and Thomas J. Barber Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University. Riess is also a Nobel laureate, winning the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics “for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae,” according to the Nobel Institute.
As of 2022, the Hubble Space Telescope gathered the most numerous sample of homogeneously measured standard candles. It measured a large number of standard candles out to about 40 Mpc or about 130 million light-years. “As of 2022, the largest collection of homogeneously measured SNe Ia is complete to D less than or equal to 40 Mpc or redshift z less than or equal to 0.01,” the authors of the research write. “It consists of 42 SNe Ia in 37 host galaxies calibrated with observations of Cepheids with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), the heritage of more than 1000 orbits (a comparable number of hours) invested over the last ~20 yrs.”
In this research, the astronomers used the powerful JWST to cross-check the Hubble’s work. “We cross-check the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Cepheid/Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) distance ladder, which yields the most precise local H0 (Hubble flow), against early James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) subsamples (~1/4 of the HST sample) from SH0ES and CCHP, calibrated only with NGC 4258,” the authors write. SH0ES and CCHP are different observing efforts aimed at measuring the Hubble constant. SH0ES stands for Supernova H0 for the Equation of State of Dark Energy, and CCHP stands for Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program, which uses the JWST to measure the Hubble constant.
“JWST has certain distinct advantages (and some disadvantages) compared to HST for measuring distances to nearby galaxies,” Riess and his co-authors write. It offers a 2.5 times higher near-infrared resolution than the HST. Despite some of its disadvantages, the JWST “is able to provide a strong cross-check of distances in the first two rungs,” the authors explain.
Observations from both telescopes are closely aligned, which basically minimizes instrument error as the cause of the discrepancy between observations and the Lambda CDM model.
“While it will still take multiple years for the JWST sample of SN hosts to be as large as the HST sample, we show that the current JWST measurements have already ruled out systematic biases from the first rungs of the distance ladder at a much smaller level than the Hubble tension,” the authors write.
This research covered about one-third of the Hubble’s data set, with the known distance to a galaxy called NGC 4258 serving as a reference point. Even though the data set was small, Riess and his co-researchers achieved impressively precise results. They showed that the measurement differences were less than 2%. That’s much less than the 8% to 9% in the Hubble tension discrepancy.
That means that our Lamda CDM model is missing something. The standard model yields an expansion rate of about 67 to 68 kilometres per second per megaparsec. Telescope observations yield a slightly higher rate: between 70 and 76 kilometres per second per megaparsec. This work shows that the discrepancy can’t be due to the different telescopes and methods.
“The discrepancy between the observed expansion rate of the universe and the predictions of the standard model suggests that our understanding of the universe may be incomplete. With two NASA flagship telescopes now confirming each other’s findings, we must take this [Hubble tension] problem very seriously—it’s a challenge but also an incredible opportunity to learn more about our universe,” said lead author Riess.
What could be missing from the Lambda CDM model?
Marc Kamionkowski is a Johns Hopkins cosmologist who helped calculate the Hubble constant and recently developed a possible new explanation for the tension. Though not part of this research, he commented on it in a press release.
“One possible explanation for the Hubble tension would be if there was something missing in our understanding of the early universe, such as a new component of matter—early dark energy—that gave the universe an unexpected kick after the big bang,” said Kamionkowski. “And there are other ideas, like funny dark matter properties, exotic particles, changing electron mass, or primordial magnetic fields that may do the trick. Theorists have license to get pretty creative.”
The door is open, theorists just have to walk in.
Recent Posts
Quantum Correlations Could Solve the Black Hole Information Paradox
The black hole information paradox has puzzled physicists for decades. New research shows how quantum…
M87 Releases a Rare and Powerful Outburts of Gamma-ray Radiation
In April 2019, the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) collaboration made history when it released the first-ever…
Astronomers Find a Black Hole Tipped Over on its Side
Almost every large galaxy has a supermassive black hole churning away at its core. In…
NASA is Developing Solutions for Lunar Housekeeping’s Biggest Problem: Dust!
Through the Artemis Program, NASA will send the first astronauts to the Moon since the…
Where’s the Most Promising Place to Find Martian Life?
New research suggests that our best hopes for finding existing life on Mars isn’t on…
Can Entangled Particles Communicate Faster than Light?
Entanglement is perhaps one of the most confusing aspects of quantum mechanics. On its surface,…
View Comments
The CCHP data continue to disagree with the SH0ES data and imply there is a systematic problem with the Cepheids:
"We find three independent values of Ho = 69.85 +/- 1.75 (stat) +/- 1.54 (sys) for the TRGB, Ho = 67.96 +/- 1.85 (stat) +/- 1.90 (sys) for the JAGB, and Ho = 72.05 +/- 1.86 (stat) +/- 3.10 (sys) km/s/Mpc for Cepheids. Tying into supernovae, and combining these methods adopting a flat prior, yields our current estimate of Ho = 69.96 +/- 1.05 (stat) +/- 1.12 (sys) km/s/Mpc. The distances measured using the TRGB and the JAGB method agree at the 1% level, but differ from the Cepheid distances at the 2.5-4% level. The value of Ho based on these two methods with JWST data alone is Ho = 69.03 +/- 1.75 (total error) km/sec/Mpc. " [Freedman, et al., "Status Report on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Three Independent Astrophysical Determinations of the Hubble Constant Using the James Webb Space Telescope".]
The new SH0ES paper agree, they think "current JWST subsamples produce large sampling differences". At minimum that is something that needs to be resolved so we can compare the disagreeing methods.