论文标题
哈勃常数的轨道裂缝
A crack in the track of the Hubble Constant
论文作者
论文摘要
自1920年代，埃德温·哈勃（Edwin Hubble）的第一个衡量标准以来，衡量宇宙在给定时间（“哈勃常数”）的速度一直是一个争议的话题。早在1970年代，Sandage et de Vaucouleurs就一直在争论这种测量的适当方法。天文学家是否应该仅专注于他们的最佳指标，例如头目，并根据最佳对象提高该测量的精度？还是他们应该“传播风险”，即在平均结果之前将指标和方法乘以乘以？在几种不确定的措施中，是否有强大的协议，正如目前认为捍卫“哈勃危机”的存在的那样，比单个百分之一的精度测量更具说服力？我认为，这一争议源于对与此类实验测量相关的不确定性所需要的不确定性的误解。天体物理测量值（例如哈勃常数的度量）需要一种方法，该方法既可以减少已知的不确定性并跟踪未知的未知数。根据从所谓的哈勃危机中汲取的教训，我绘制了一个方法论指南，用于识别，量化和减少天体物理测量中的不确定性，希望这样的指南不仅可以帮助重新构架当前的哈勃紧张张力，而且可以作为未来在天文学家，天文学家和天文学家，天文学家和天文学家，天文学家，天文学家之间的富有成果的讨论。
Measuring the rate at which the universe expands at a given time -- the 'Hubble constant' -- has been a topic of controversy since the first measure of its expansion by Edwin Hubble in the 1920's. As early as the 1970's, Sandage et de Vaucouleurs have been arguing about the adequate methodology for such a measurement. Should astronomers focus only on their best indicators, e.g., the Cepheids, and improve the precision of this measurement based on a unique object to the best possible? Or should they 'spread the risks', i.e., multiply the indicators and methodologies before averaging over their results? Is a robust agreement across several uncertain measures, as is currently argued to defend the existence of a 'Hubble crisis' more telling than a single one percent precision measurement? This controversy, I argue, stems from a misconception of what managing the uncertainties associated with such experimental measurements require. Astrophysical measurements, such as the measure of the Hubble constant, require a methodology that permits both to reduce the known uncertainties and to track the unknown unknowns. Based on the lessons drawn from the so-called Hubble crisis, I sketch a methodological guide for identifying, quantifying and reducing uncertainties in astrophysical measurements, hoping that such a guide can not only help to re-frame the current Hubble tension, but serve as a starting point for future fruitful discussions between astrophysicists, astronomers and philosophers.
