关于哈勃张力的锁定观点（来自SH0ES团队的评论）
A Lockdown Perspective on the Hubble Tension (with comments from the SH0ES team)
摘要：
这是我于2020年7月17日在剑桥发表的关于“哈勃张力”的演讲的记录。我回顾了里斯和合作者的SH 0 ES分析，并指出了一些内部的不一致之处，包括从造父变星的两个主要几何距离锚，大麦云（LMC）和NGC 4258推断的相对距离之间的差异。然后，我问`需要什么才能使SH 0 ES与早期测量兼容？'.答案是SH 0 ES星系造父变星周期光度关系截距的系统偏差为0.1 - 0.15等。这样的偏差解决了哈勃张力，距离锚之间的张力，以及SH 0 ES和红巨星分支（TRGB）距离阶梯顶端之间的差异，由弗里德曼和合作者测量和校准。我的TRGB和SH 0 ES值H 0之间的差异主要是由一个系统的校准偏移。在短期内，观测工作应该集中在改进距离锚和附近星系的校准上，而不是试图测量到更多超新星宿主星系的距离模量。我认为，一个独立的距离估计NGC 4258是特别重要的。通过这样的观测，应该有可能在相对较短的时间尺度上明确确定哈勃张力是否真的存在。
英文摘要：
This is a transcript of a talk that I gave in Cambridge on 17th July 2020 on the `Hubble tension'. I review the SH0ES analyses by Riess and collaborators and point out some internal inconsistencies, including a discrepancy between the relative distances inferred from Cepheids of two of the primary geometric distance anchors, the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) and NGC 4258. I then ask `what would it take to make SH0ES compatible with early time measurements?'. The answer is a systematic bias of 0.1 - 0.15 mag in the intercept of the Cepheid period-luminosity relations of SH0ES galaxies. Such a bias resolves the Hubble tension, the tension between the distance anchors, and the difference between SH0ES and the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) distance ladder, as measured and calibrated by Freedman and collaborators. I show that the difference between the TRGB and SH0ES values of H0 is caused mainly by a systematic calibration offset. In the short term, observational efforts should be focussed on improving the calibrations of the distance anchors and nearby galaxies, rather than trying to measure distance moduli to more supernovae host galaxies. I argue that an independent distance estimate to NGC 4258 is particularly critical. With such observations, it should be possible, on a relatively short timescale, to establish definitively whether the Hubble tension really exists.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
