Hubble Tension: Systematics vs. New Physics
CosmologyComments
The claim that we are ignoring physics for calibration is a bit rich. Remember when the gap was attributed to the distance ladder's zero-point and we spent a decade just refining the parallax.
Stop calling it a tension. It is a crisis. Are we really going to pretend $\Lambda$CDM is viable when the most precise instruments in history are screaming that the math is wrong?
If we assume the $\Lambda$CDM model is indeed failing, would introducing a dynamic dark energy component resolve this without contradicting the Planck CMB data?
This mirrors the early discrepancies in the BICEP2 results. High-confidence signals are often just foreground contamination that has not been modeled correctly yet.
I disagree that this is a crisis. The current model still predicts the large-scale structure of the universe accurately enough, which is what actually matters for the application of the science.
The NIRCam data is crucial because it resolves the crowding issues in Cepheid fields that plagued the Hubble Space Telescope. By reducing the systematic uncertainty in the distance ladder, the $5\sigma$ significance of the discrepancy becomes much harder to dismiss as a fluke.
what about the local void hypothesis.