Abstract
Recently, much controversy has been raised about the cosmological conundrum involving the discrepancy in the value of the Hubble constant as implied by Planck satellite observations of the CMBR in the early Universe and that deduced from other distance indicators (for instance using standard candles like supernovae, tip of the red giant branch, etc.) in the present epoch. The Planck estimate is about \( 67\; {\text{km}}^{ - 1} \;{\text{Mpc}}^{ - 1} \), while that deduced from distance indicators at the present epoch is around \( 73 - 74 \;{\text{km}}^{ - 1} \;{\text{Mpc}}^{ - 1} \). Also the independent determination of the local value of the Hubble constant based on a calibration of the tip of the red giant branch and applied to Type Ia supernovae found a value of \( 69.8\;{\text{km}}^{ - 1} \;{\text{Mpc}}^{ - 1} \). Here we propose a modification of the gravitational field on large scales as an alternate explanation for this discrepancy in the value of the Hubble constant as implied in the above-mentioned method, i.e., by Planck observations of the CMBR in the early Universe, and that deduced from other distance indicators in the present epoch.
References
E J Baxter and B D Sherwin Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 501 1823 (2021)
S Mukherjee et al. arXiv:2009.14199 [astro-ph.CO] (2020)
J Soltis, S Casertano and A G Riess arXiv:2012.09196 [astro-ph.GA] (2020)
A G Riess et al. arXiv:2012.08534 [astro-ph.CO] (2020)
K Dutta et al. Phys. Rev. D. 100 103501 (2019)
W Freedman et al. Astrophys. J. 882 34 (2019)
D Alberto et al. Astrophys. J. 885 137 (2019)
A G Riess et al. Astrophys. J. 876 85 (2019)
G Pietrzynski et al. Nature 567 200 (2019)
A G Riess et al. Astrophys. J. 861 126 (2018)
A G Riess et al. Astrophys. J. 855 136 (2018)
P A R Ade et al. Astron. Astrophys. 594 A13 (2016)
N Aghanim et al. arXiv:1807.06209v2 [astro-ph.CO] (2018)
N Aghanim et al. Astron. Astrophys. 641 A6 (2020)
J Ryan, Y Chen and B Ratra Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 488 3844 (2019)
E Aubourget al. Phys. Rev. D 92 123516 (2015)
G C-F Chen et al. arXiv:1907.02533 [astro-ph.CO] (2019)
S Birrer et al. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 484 4726 (2018)
W L Freedman et al. Astrophys. J. 882 34 (2019)
T de Jaeger et al. arXiv:2006.03412 [astro-ph.CO] (2020)
W D’Arcy Kenworthy, D Scolnic and A G Riess Astrophys. J. 875 145 (2019)
R Anderson and A G Riess Astrophys. J. 861 36 (2018)
D Jones et al. arXiv:1805.05911 [astro-ph.CO] (2018)
A G Riess et al. Astrophys. J. 826 56 (2016)
M Cerdonio arXiv:1906.07080v3 [gr-qc] (2019)
A Genova et al. Nature Commun. 9 289 (2018)
C Sivaram Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26 1743010 (2017)
L Rebecca, K Arun and C Sivaram Astrophys. Space Sci. 363 149 (2018)
L Rebecca, K Arun and C Sivaram Indian J. Phys. 94 1491 (2019)
M Milgrom arXiv:1703.06110v3 [astro-ph.GA] (2017)
M Milgrom arXiv:1910.04368 [astro-ph.GA] (2019)
C Sivaram, K Arun and L Rebecca J. Astrophys. Astron. 41 4 (2020)
M Milgrom Astrophys. J. 270 365 (1983)
K Arun, S B Gudennavar and C Sivaram Adv. Space Res. 60 166 (2017)
P M Ogle et al. Astrophys. J. Lett. 884 L11 (2019)
P M Ogle et al. Astrophys. J. 817 109 (2016)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sivaram, C., Arun, K. & Rebecca, L. The Hubble tension: Change in dark energy or a case for modified gravity?. Indian J Phys 96, 1289–1292 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12648-021-02080-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12648-021-02080-7