Investigating Cosmic Discordance
Open accessAbstract
We show that a combined analysis of cosmic microwave background anisotropy power spectra obtained by the Planck satellite and luminosity distance data simultaneously excludes a flat universe and a cosmological constant at 99% confidence level. These results hold separately when combining Planck with three different data sets: the two determinations of the Hubble constant from Riess et al. and Freedman et al., and the Pantheon catalog of high-redshift Type Ia supernovae. We conclude that either the Lambda cold dark matter model needs to be replaced by a different paradigm, or else there are significant but still undetected systematics. Our result calls for new observations and stimulates the investigation of alternative theoretical models and solutions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Ref. [92] showed that Planck data are in perfect agreement with SNeIa and local Hubble constant measurements, even by strongly preferring a closed Universe, while Planck is still in strong tension with BAO measurements.
“In Ref. [92], it was shown that Planck data are in perfect agreement with the SNeIa and the local Hubble constant measurements, even by strongly preferring a closed Universe, while Planck is still in strong tension with the BAO measurements”
From Challenges of the Standard Cosmological Model (2022) · cites this paper as [92]
Planck plus luminosity distance measurements disagree with both a cosmological constant and a flat Universe at more than 99% CL, preferring a phantom closed Universe.
“Planck plus the luminosity distance measurements disagree with both a cosmological constant and a flat Universe at more than 99% CL, preferring a phantom closed Universe with the same statistical significance.”
From Challenges of the Standard Cosmological Model (2022) · cites this paper as [92]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 166
- Authors
- Di Valentino, E., Melchiorri, A., & Silk, J.
- Affiliations
- Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- Venue
- The Astrophysical Journal Letters
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 2021-02-01
- Volume
- 908
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- L9
- ISSN
- 2041-8205 (ISSN-L)
- 2041-8213
- OpenAlex
- W3128753448
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 17.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Astrophysical Journal Letters (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- IRIS Research product catalog (Sapienza University of Rome) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Noncommutative and Quantum Gravity Theories
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
- Keywords
- cosmic microwave background anisotropies, Planck satellite, luminosity distance, Hubble constant, Type Ia supernovae, LambdaCDM, cosmological constant, flat universe, alternative cosmology, systematic errors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
