2020
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2009.11292
View full text |Buy / Rent full text
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|
Moritz Haslbauer,
Indranil Banik,
Pavel Kroupa

Abstract: The KBC void is a local underdensity with the observed relative density contrast δ ≡ 1 − ρ/ρ 0 = 0.46 ± 0.06 between 40 and 300 Mpc around the Local Group. If mass is conserved in the Universe, such a void could explain the 5.3σ Hubble tension. However, the MXXL simulation shows that the KBC void causes 6.04σ tension with standard cosmology (ΛCDM). Combined with the Hubble tension, ΛCDM is ruled out at 7.09σ confidence. Consequently, the density and velocity distribution on Gpc scales suggest a long-range modi… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 194 publications
(436 reference statements)
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our analysis is confirming the existence of a local underdensity surrounding us in different directions [1,16,17]. The probability of formation of such an inhomogeneity is low in the CDM framework, but modified gravity [18] could alleviate this problem.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 77%
“…This is interesting since all lenses should be subject to the same assumptions, so if there is a systematic, then all lenses are affected. Nevertheless, the descending trend in H 0 can be expected to be robust [22] and it has prompted various explanations [20,112]. However, it is possible that it is not a trend with lens redshift, but due to the line of sight (LOS) anisotropy as we outline here.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Moreover, the Hubble tension is slightly alleviated but the jury is still out on the high value of the R19 measurement. The claim that its origin is a huge local void(Haslbauer, Banik, & Kroupa, 2020;Kim, Kang, Lee, & Jang, 1920) might be an alternative explanation.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%