Crowded No More: The Accuracy of the Hubble Constant Tested with High Resolution Observations of Cepheids by JWST
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- The study uses high-resolution observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to test the accuracy of previous observations made by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) regarding extragalactic Cepheids and their impact on determining the Hubble constant.
- Two galaxies, NGC4258 and NGC5584, are focused on in the study as they have known distances based on maser-based geometric measurements and are representative of the sample used in previous HST studies.
- JWST's superior ability to separate sources from line-of-sight companions in the near-infrared region leads to a significant reduction in dispersion of Cepheid period-luminosity relations.
- This results in a higher precision for individual Cepheid measurements with an error rate reduced from 20% to 7%.
- Two-epoch photometry is performed to confirm identifications, assess JWST's photometric stability, and constrain Cepheid phases.
- The intercepts of the period-luminosity relations obtained from JWST observations are found to be in excellent agreement with those derived from HST data for both NGC4258 and NGC5584.
- Differences between them are measured as 0.00+/-0.03 magnitudes for NGC4258 and 0.02+/-0.03 magnitudes for NGC5584 respectively, indicating an insignificant discrepancy of only 0.02+/-0.04 magnitudes in determining the Hubble constant (H0).
- Various analysis variants consistently support these baseline results, suggesting that systematic errors in HST Cepheid photometry do not significantly contribute to current estimates of the Hubble Tension.
Authors: Adam G. Riess, Gagandeep S. Anand, Wenlong Yuan, Stefano Casertano, Andrew Dolphin, Lucas M. Macri, Louise Breuval, Dan Scolnic, Marshall Perrin, Richard I. Anderson
Abstract: High-resolution JWST observations can test confusion-limited HST observations for a photometric bias that could affect extragalactic Cepheids and the determination of the Hubble constant. We present JWST NIRCAM observations in two epochs and three filters of >330 Cepheids in NGC4258 (which has a 1.5% maser-based geometric distance) and in NGC5584 (host of SNIa 2007af), near the median distance of the SH0ES HST SNIa host sample and with the best leverage among them to detect such a bias. JWST provides far superior source separation from line-of-sight companions than HST in the NIR to largely negate confusion or crowding noise at these wavelengths, where extinction is minimal. The result is a remarkable >2.5x reduction in the dispersion of the Cepheid P-L relations, from 0.45 to 0.17 mag, improving individual Cepheid precision from 20% to 7%. Two-epoch photometry confirmed identifications, tested JWST photometric stability, and constrained Cepheid phases. The P-L relation intercepts are in very good agreement, with differences (JWST-HST) of 0.00+/-0.03 and 0.02+/-0.03 mag for NGC4258 and NGC5584, respectively. The difference in the determination of H_0 between HST and JWST from these intercepts is 0.02+/-0.04 mag, insensitive to JWST zeropoints or count-rate non-linearity thanks to error cancellation between rungs. We explore a broad range of analysis variants (including passband combinations, phase corrections, measured detector offsets, and crowding levels) indicating robust baseline results. These observations provide the strongest evidence yet that systematic errors in HST Cepheid photometry do not play a significant role in the present Hubble Tension. Upcoming JWST observations of >12 SNIa hosts should further refine the local measurement of the Hubble constant.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Score: 0
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.