<h2>The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An Independent Determination of the</h2>

<p>Hubble Constant Based on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch. I hope this helps.
<a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.05922.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.05922.pdf</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-22T18:41:04.833Z
thanks , I will read it carefully.
anna v
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-22T20:07:10.163Z
How does this answer the question about whether assumptions about baryogenesis affect measurements of $H_0$ from the CMB?
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-22T20:15:19.943Z
Although to be fair, the paper's introduction does give a good overview of the problem and general approaches to its solution.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-22T20:37:47.063Z
It does not answer the question but I thought it had good information on the topic. Sorry
Dean Pitts
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-24T13:44:03.560Z
Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry Of The Universe and Baryon
Formation From Non-Equilibrium Quarks and Gluons
Gouranga C Nayak, ∗
(Dated: September 13, 2019)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.05640.pdf

This might help to?
Dean Pitts
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-24T14:13:07.130Z
Matter and Antimatter in the Universe https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4186.pdf 

E6 inspired composite Higgs model and baryon asymmetry
generation https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.09843.pdf

Electroweak baryogenesis https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.2942.pdf

Nambu-Goldstone Affleck-Dine Baryogenesis https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0608347.pdf

SO(10) GUT Baryogenesis https://arxiv.org/pdf/0711.2727.pdf This is just some theories that I found there are more.
Dean Pitts
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-22T18:30:46.940Z
2020-02-22T18:30:46.940Z
Dean Pitts
<p>In recent news there is <a href="https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/490/2/1743/5568378" rel="noreferrer">this announcement</a></p>
<p>In the introduction they say:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Distance measurement discrepancy: a <span class="math-container">$4.4σ$</span> tension on the value of <span class="math-container">$H_0$</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>and I understand the discrepancy is with the value derived using the cosmic microwave radiation (CMB). There will be more publications to follow.</p>
<p>These measurements are local, i.e. of the universe as it is now.</p>
<p>By coincidence I was looking up baryogenesis and came upon the <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sakharov_condition#targetText=Noun&amp;targetText=(physics)%20Any%20of%20the%20three,interactions%20out%20of%20thermal%20equilibrium" rel="noreferrer">Sakharov condition</a>  for generating the asymmetry between baryons and antibaryons which must have happened by the time the CMB map solidified.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Any of the three necessary conditions that a baryon-generating interaction must satisfy to produce matter and antimatter at different rates: (i) baryon number violation; (ii) C-symmetry and CP-symmetry violation; (iii) interactions out of thermal equilibrium.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>iii) seems to me to be relevant to a measurement of the Hubble constant using the CMB data because it would affect what is presumed in the standard cosmology :</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://resonance.is/improved-accuracy-hubble-constant-suggests-new-physics/" rel="noreferrer">The CMB is also used to determine the Hubble constant</a>, where the temperature is analyzed as a function of frequency – a power spectrum – and a best fit analysis is made to constrain the Hubble constant.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If interactions out of thermal equilibrium are responsible for baryogenesis, maybe the assumptions entering the fit should change, and maybe the discrepancy between the two methods tells something about baryogenesis.</p>
<p>As  a particle physicist I am not up to astrophysical calculations. Is anybody familiar with this topic who could say  whether this is a possible suggestion?</p>
<p>Edit:added</p>
<p><a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.3398.pdf" rel="noreferrer">This link</a> says that the Sakharov conditions are necessary, and the standard model obeys all three:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>During a first order electroweak phase transition bubbles of the broken vacuum form in an unbroken phase. The expansion of these bubble walls is shown to lead to considerable departure from thermal equilibrium.</p>
<p>Since Sakharov’s conditions are satisfied, the baryon asymmetry of the Universe could be created during the electroweak phase transition. Unfortunately, it has been shown that the amount of CP violation coupled with the strength of a first order phase transition is not sufficient to create enough baryon asymmetry in the SM</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Surely the standard model must be  used in estimating by fits to the CMB the Hubble constant, but not the extra baryogenesis mechanism necessary for the observed asymmetry. These could affect the thermal equilibrium estimates.</p>

<cosmology><hubble-constant>
The recent results on Hubble constant measurements
anna v
# The recent results on Hubble constant measurements

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-10-27)

In recent news there is [this announcement](https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/490/2/1743/5568378)

In the introduction they say:

> Distance measurement discrepancy: a $4.4σ$ tension on the value of $H\_0$

and I understand the discrepancy is with the value derived using the cosmic microwave radiation (CMB). There will be more publications to follow.

These measurements are local, i.e. of the universe as it is now.

By coincidence I was looking up baryogenesis and came upon the [Sakharov condition](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sakharov_condition#targetText=Noun&targetText=(physics)%20Any%20of%20the%20three,interactions%20out%20of%20thermal%20equilibrium) for generating the asymmetry between baryons and antibaryons which must have happened by the time the CMB map solidified.

> Any of the three necessary conditions that a baryon-generating interaction must satisfy to produce matter and antimatter at different rates: (i) baryon number violation; (ii) C-symmetry and CP-symmetry violation; (iii) interactions out of thermal equilibrium.

iii) seems to me to be relevant to a measurement of the Hubble constant using the CMB data because it would affect what is presumed in the standard cosmology :

> [The CMB is also used to determine the Hubble constant](https://resonance.is/improved-accuracy-hubble-constant-suggests-new-physics/), where the temperature is analyzed as a function of frequency – a power spectrum – and a best fit analysis is made to constrain the Hubble constant.

If interactions out of thermal equilibrium are responsible for baryogenesis, maybe the assumptions entering the fit should change, and maybe the discrepancy between the two methods tells something about baryogenesis.

As a particle physicist I am not up to astrophysical calculations. Is anybody familiar with this topic who could say whether this is a possible suggestion?

Edit:added

[This link](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.3398.pdf) says that the Sakharov conditions are necessary, and the standard model obeys all three:

> During a first order electroweak phase transition bubbles of the broken vacuum form in an unbroken phase. The expansion of these bubble walls is shown to lead to considerable departure from thermal equilibrium.
>
> Since Sakharov’s conditions are satisfied, the baryon asymmetry of the Universe could be created during the electroweak phase transition. Unfortunately, it has been shown that the amount of CP violation coupled with the strength of a first order phase transition is not sufficient to create enough baryon asymmetry in the SM

Surely the standard model must be used in estimating by fits to the CMB the Hubble constant, but not the extra baryogenesis mechanism necessary for the observed asymmetry. These could affect the thermal equilibrium estimates.

**Tags:** cosmology, hubble-constant


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-02-22. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

## The Carnegie-Chicago Hubble Program. VIII. An Independent Determination of the

Hubble Constant Based on the Tip of the Red Giant Branch. I hope this helps.
<https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.05922.pdf>

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: thanks , I will read it carefully.  
> **username_2**: How does this answer the question about whether assumptions about baryogenesis affect measurements of $H_0$ from the CMB?  
> **username_2**: Although to be fair, the paper's introduction does give a good overview of the problem and general approaches to its solution.  
> **username_1**: It does not answer the question but I thought it had good information on the topic. Sorry  
> **username_1**: Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry Of The Universe and Baryon Formation From Non-Equilibrium Quarks and Gluons Gouranga C Nayak, ∗ (Dated: September 13, 2019)  https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.05640.pdf  This might help to?  
> **username_1**: Matter and Antimatter in the Universe https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4186.pdf   E6 inspired composite Higgs model and baryon asymmetry generation https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.09843.pdf  Electroweak baryogenesis https://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.2942.pdf  Nambu-Goldstone Affleck-Dine Baryogenesis https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0608347.pdf  SO(10) GUT Baryogenesis https://arxiv.org/pdf/0711.2727.pdf This is just some theories that I found there are more.  

---

