Article

Measuring the Hubble constant with a sample of kilonovae

M. W. CoughlinDivision of Physics, Math, and Astronomy, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 91125, USA. [email protected]Sarah AntierAPC, UMR 7164, 10 rue Alice Domon et Léonie Duquet, 75205, Paris, FranceTim DietrichInstitut für Physik und Astronomie, Universität Potsdam, Haus 28, Karl-Liebknecht-Str. 24/25, 14476, Potsdam, GermanyRyan J. FoleyDepartment of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USAJack HeinzelArtemis, Université Côte d'Azur, Observatoire Côte d'Azur, CNRS, CS 34229, F-06304, Nice Cedex 4, FranceMattia BullaNordita, KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Stockholm University, Roslagstullsbacken 23, SE-106 91, Stockholm, SwedenNelson ChristensenArtemis, Université Côte d'Azur, Observatoire Côte d'Azur, CNRS, CS 34229, F-06304, Nice Cedex 4, FranceDavid A. CoulterDepartment of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USALina IssaDépartement de Phyisque, Université Paris-Saclay, ENS Paris-Saclay, 91190, Gif-sur-Yvette, FranceNandita KhetanGran Sasso Science Institute (GSSI), I-67100, L'Aquila, Italy

2020en

ABI

Abstract

Abstract Kilonovae produced by the coalescence of compact binaries with at least one neutron star are promising standard sirens for an independent measurement of the Hubble constant ( H 0 ). Through their detection via follow-up of gravitational-wave (GW), short gamma-ray bursts (sGRBs) or optical surveys, a large sample of kilonovae (even without GW data) can be used for H 0 contraints. Here, we show measurement of H 0 using light curves associated with four sGRBs, assuming these are attributable to kilonovae, combined with GW170817. Including a systematic uncertainty on the models that is as large as the statistical ones, we find $${H}_{0}=73.{8}_{-5.8}^{+6.3}\ {\rm{km}}\ {{\rm{s}}}^{-1}\ {{\rm{Mpc}}}^{-1}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msub> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>H</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>0</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>73</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>8</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>5.8</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>6.3</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> <mml:mspace/> <mml:mi>km</mml:mi> <mml:mspace/> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>s</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> <mml:mspace/> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>Mpc</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> and $${H}_{0}=71.{2}_{-3.1}^{+3.2}\ {\rm{km}}\ {{\rm{s}}}^{-1}\ {{\rm{Mpc}}}^{-1}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msub> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>H</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>0</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msub> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>71</mml:mn> <mml:mo>.</mml:mo> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3.1</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>+</mml:mo> <mml:mn>3.2</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msubsup> <mml:mspace/> <mml:mi>km</mml:mi> <mml:mspace/> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>s</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> <mml:mspace/> <mml:msup> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>Mpc</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mrow> <mml:mo>−</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:msup> </mml:math> for two different kilonova models that are consistent with the local and inverse-distance ladder measurements. For a given model, this measurement is about a factor of 2-3 more precise than the standard-siren measurement for GW170817 using only GWs.

Identifiers

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-17998-5

Citations and references

Cited by 20 references

Metrics — AkademScholar