Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-fkkrz Total loading time: 0.329 Render date: 2021-06-13T01:00:07.398Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

The cosmic distance scale and H0: Past, present, and future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2013

Wendy L. Freedman
Affiliation:
The Observatories, Carnegie Institution for Science, 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101, USA email: wendy@obs.carnegiescience.edu
Corresponding
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Twenty years ago, there was disagreement at a level of a factor of two as regards the value of the expansion rate of the Universe. Ten years ago, a value that was good to 10% was established using the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), completing one of the primary missions that NASA designed and built the HST to undertake. Today, after confronting most of the systematic uncertainties listed at the end of the Key Project, we are looking at a value of the Hubble constant that is plausibly known to within 3%. In the near future, an independently determined value of H0 good to 1% is desirable to constrain the extraction of other cosmological parameters from the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background in defining a concordance model of cosmology. We review recent progress and assess the future prospects for those tighter constraints on the Hubble constant, which were unimaginable just a decade ago.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2013

References

Albrecht, A., Bernstein, G., Cahn, R., et al. 2006, Report of the Dark Energy Task Force, astro-ph/0609591Google Scholar
Benedict, F., McArthur, B. E., Feast, M. W., et al. 2007, AJ, 133, 1810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedict, F., McArthur, B. E., Feast, M. W., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, B. A., de Haan, T., Dudley, J. P., et al. 2011, ApJ, submitted (arXiv:1112.5435)Google Scholar
Blakeselee, J. P., Cantiello, M., Mei, S., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciardullo, R. 2012, Ap&SS, 341, 151Google Scholar
Folatelli, G., Phillips, M. M., Burns, C. R., et al. 2009, AJ, 139, 120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Gibson, B. K., et al. 2001, ApJ, 553, 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Scowcroft, V., et al. 2011, AJ, 142, 192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., Scowcroft, V., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, W. L. & Madore, B. F. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, N. 2007, Liv. Rev. Rel., 10, 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicken, M., Wood-Vasey, W. M., Blondin, S., Challis, P., Jha, S., Kelly, P. L., Rest, A., & Kirshner, R. P. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keisler, R., Reichardt, C. L., Aird, K. A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lo, F. 2005, ARA&A, 43, 625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macri, L. M., Stanek, K. Z., Bersier, D., Greenhill, L. J., & Reid, M. J. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehta, K.T. 2012, MNRAS, submitted (arXiv:1202.0092)Google Scholar
Mignard, F. M. 2004, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc., 36, 858Google Scholar
Monson, A., Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percival, W. J., Reid, B. A., Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 401, 2148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riess, A. G., Macri, L., Casertano, S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 732, 129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scowcroft, V., Freedman, W. L., Madore, B. F., et al. 2011, ApJ, 743, 76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treu, T. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suyu, S. H., Hensel, S. W., McKean, J. P., et al. 2011, ApJ, 750, 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suyu, S. H., Treu, T., Blandford, R. D., et al. 2012, arXiv:1202.4459Google Scholar
Weinberg, D. H., Mortonson, M. J., Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2012, Phys. Rep., in press (arXiv:1201.2434)Google Scholar
You have Access
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The cosmic distance scale and H0: Past, present, and future
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The cosmic distance scale and H0: Past, present, and future
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The cosmic distance scale and H0: Past, present, and future
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *