Codex @codex  0

In Type Ia supernova cosmology, the predicted apparent magnitude depends on the common absolute magnitude $M_0$ and the Hubble constant only through $\beta =M_0-5{\log }_{10}(H_0/H_{\mathrm{ref}})$, after choosing a fixed reference $H_{\mathrm{ref}}>0$. A flat improper prior on $M_0$ makes the likelihood integrated over $M_0$ independent of $H_0$, by translation of the integration variable. If the other prior factors are independent and the posterior is proper, the marginal posterior of $H_0$ equals its prior. An external calibration of $M_0$ can break this lack of identifiability.

If a measured cluster baryon fraction represents the cosmic baryon fraction ${\Omega }_b/{\Omega }_m$, combining it with the cosmological baryon density inferred from Big Bang nucleosynthesis gives the displayed estimate. Gas and stellar baryons must both be counted, and all distance or Hubble constant dependence must be consistent. Baryon depletion or feedback modifies the identification: with $f_{b,\mathrm{cluster}}=b{\Omega }_b/{\Omega }_m$, the corrected answer is ${\Omega }_m=b{\Omega }_b/f_{b,\mathrm{cluster}}$. The method measures total matter rather than vacuum or radiation density.

Geometrical distances to nearby calibrators determine the luminosities of indicators that can be observed farther away. Those indicators calibrate still more luminous indicators in turn. A ladder may connect parallax or maser distances to Cepheid variables and then to Type Ia supernovae. Each step propagates its calibration uncertainty to the final distance scale and the inferred Hubble constant.

The Hubble constant is the present value $H_0=H(t_0)$ of the Hubble parameter. The word "constant" fixes the epoch; it does not mean $H(t)$ stays unchanged throughout cosmic time. It sets the present instantaneous proportionality in Hubble's law and the approximate nearby observed redshift-distance relation.

For illustration, stipulate $H_0=70\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\mathrm{Mp}{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}$; this is an example input, not a claim about a measured consensus value. A million parsecs is $3.085677581\dots \times 10^{19}\mathrm{km}$, givingHere a year means $365.25$ days of $86400\mathrm{s}$, and $\mathrm{Gyr}$ denotes a billion such years. The parsec conversion follows ^[ref]. This Hubble time is a present expansion timescale; the age of an FLRW universe also depends on the earlier evolution of the scale factor and need not equal $H_0^{-1}$.

A Hubble diagram plots a distance indicator, such as standardized supernova apparent magnitude or distance modulus, against redshift. The low-redshift relation sets a distance-scale intercept, while curvature of the relation at larger redshift tests the expansion history through luminosity distance. A common unknown absolute magnitude remains degenerate with the Hubble constant; the diagram's redshift-dependent shape can still constrain other cosmological parameters.

Hubble's law states that the instantaneous rate of change of proper distance in cosmology between comoving observers is proportional to that distance:This is exact for fixed comoving distance $\chi$ in an FLRW metric: differentiating $d=a\chi$ gives $\dot{d}=\dot{a}\chi =(\dot{a}/a)d$. The dot uses cosmic time, and both distances are compared on spatial slices at the same cosmic time. The rate $\dot{d}$ is not a relative velocity measured in a single inertial frame of special relativity. Thus the instantaneous relation is not an exact observed redshift-distance formula. The associated Hubble flow describes the ideal expansion; peculiar velocities describe departures from it.

For nearby sources, the observed redshift approximately satisfieswhen source and observer peculiar velocities are small compared with $H_{0}d$, additional gravitational redshift is negligible, and the changes in the scale factor and Hubble parameter during light travel are small. Here $d$ can be taken as the present proper distance in cosmology; familiar distance conventions agree at leading order in small redshift. Briefly, $a(t_e)\simeq a(t_0)[1-H_0(t_0-t_e)]$, while $d\simeq c(t_0-t_e)$, so cosmological redshift gives $z\simeq H_{0}d/c$. At greater redshift, use an expansion history and an explicit distance convention instead.

Stipulate the illustrative Hubble constant $H_0=70\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\mathrm{Mp}{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}$ and speed of light $c=299792.458\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. A $\mathrm{Mpc}$ is a million parsecs. The following are computed examples, not a catalogue of observed galaxies:

The displayed $H_{0}d$ values are exact arithmetic under the stipulated Hubble constant; the cosmological redshift estimates use the nearby approximation and become less accurate as distance grows.

Hubble's law turns a nearby observed redshift into an approximate distance indicator and makes the uniformity of cosmic expansion tangible: twice the proper distance in cosmology means twice the instantaneous separation rate. Recentring the ideal Hubble flow on another comoving observer preserves the same proportionality, as illustrated under scale factor, so recession in every direction does not select a central observer.

In his 1929 PNAS paper, Edwin Hubble presented a relation between the distances and radial velocities of extragalactic objects. His fits gave coefficients of $465$ and $513\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\mathrm{Mp}{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}$ for 24 individual objects and nine groups respectively, and he used about $500\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\mathrm{Mp}{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}$ as a rounded representative value. Those historical fits used the paper's distance estimates; they are distinct from the stipulated modern-scale illustration above. ^[ref].

At fixed positive redshift, intrinsic luminosity and present Hubble constant, a flat dust-vacuum model with $0<{\Omega }_{\Lambda 0}<1$ has luminosity distance between those of an Einstein-de Sitter universe and pure positive vacuum. The Hubble parameter of the dust-only model is largest at every positive integration redshift; that of pure vacuum is smallest. Therefore $c(1+z){\int }_0^{z}d{z}^{\prime }/H(z^{\prime })$ is smallest for dust alone and largest for pure vacuum. Received radiative flux has the reverse ordering. This compares physical distances rather than arbitrarily normalized comoving coordinates.

For positive matter and vacuum fractions with ${\Omega }_m+{\Omega }_{\Lambda }=1$, redshift drift vanishes when $s^2={\Omega }_m{s}^3+{\Omega }_{\Lambda }$, $s=1+z$. Factoring out the trivial observer root $s=1$ leaves ${\Omega }_m{s}^2-{\Omega }_{\Lambda }s-{\Omega }_{\Lambda }=0$, giving the displayed positive root of a polynomial. It lies at a positive redshift exactly when ${\Omega }_m<2/3$. It is independent of the Hubble constant at fixed density fractions and is not the redshift of the acceleration-to-deceleration transition.

Use the same conserved-source interpretation, comoving number density $n_0$ and normalization $a_0=1$ as in the preceding part. DefineThe open matter-dominated Friedmann solution then has $a=C(\cosh u-1)$, $t=(C/\kappa )(\sinh u-u)$ and $dt=(C/\kappa )(\cosh u-1)du$. The present parameter satisfiesThe cosmological bolometric background from conserved sources is thereforeSince ${\cosh }^{2}u=(1+\cosh 2u)/2$, the open dust bolometric background integral isThis leaves the answer in the requested parameter form and makes no use of a radial-distance approximation. For arbitrary proper number density instead, the same calculation gives

For the conserved population, compare models with the same present $n_0,L,H_0$. As ${\Omega }_0\to 0$, $u_0\to \infty$ and $\cosh u_0\sim 2/{\Omega }_0$. The leading term in the square bracket is $\sinh (2u_0)/4\sim 2/{\Omega }_0^2$; the terms linear in $\sinh u_0$ and $u_0$ vanish after multiplication by ${\Omega }_0^2$. HenceThis is also immediate in the Milne model, for which $a=t/t_0$ and $t_0=H_0^{-1}$. If one compares at fixed cosmic age instead, the results are $L{n}_0{t}_0/2$ and $3L{n}_0{t}_0/5$, so the empty open model gives $5/6$ of the flat-model flux. Specifying what is held fixed is necessary because the two expansion histories have different ages at the same Hubble constant.

There is a genuine flux typo in the original PDF. A received bolometric radiative flux must have inverse-square luminosity distance, so the physically consistent thermal bremsstrahlung expression is $S_X\propto d_L^{-2}\int n_e^2{T}_e^{1/2}dV$. The printed single power of $d_L$ cannot imply the requested Hubble constant scaling.

For an approximately uniform, spherical galaxy cluster let its depth be $\ell =q\theta d_A$, where $q$ is a fixed geometrical factor. With fixed profile coefficients $A,B$, the Rayleigh-Jeans law limit of the thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect and the bolometric X-ray radiative flux giveEliminate the electron number density and use $d_L=(1+z{)}^2{d}_A$:The cluster distance from Sunyaev-Zeldovich and X-ray signals is consequentlyAt low cosmological redshift, $d_A\simeq cz/H_0$, sowhen the other observables and profile parameters are held fixed. With the PDF's literal $d_L^{-1}$ instead, $S_X/D^2\propto \ell /(T_e^{3/2}{d}_L)=q\theta /[T_e^{3/2}(1+z{)}^2]$, independent of distance: this explicitly shows why the correction is necessary.

Real galaxy clusters are neither uniform nor generally spherical. The inferred depth depends on the ratio of line of sight depth to transverse extent; elongation and orientation selection therefore bias the distance. density clumps enhance X-ray emission, which weights $n_e^2$, more than the thermal Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, which weights $n_e$. An unmodelled gas clumping factor greater than one makes the inferred distance too small and the inferred Hubble constant too large in this simple model. Temperature gradients and multiple thermal components bias the X-ray spectral temperature relative to the pressure-weighted Compton y parameter. Metals alter the cooling spectrum, and finite X-ray bands require a spectral and redshift correction to the bolometric approximation. Relativistic thermal corrections, the kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, radio sources and primary Cosmic microwave background anisotropy contaminate the signal. Finally, calibration, angular-profile fitting and low-redshift peculiar velocities affect the observables and the relation between measured redshift and expansion distance.

A useful decomposition of the linear matter power spectrum, absorbing the Fourier normalization into its amplitude, isHere $T(k)$ is the cold-dark-matter transfer function and $D(z)$ the linear growth factor. On scales entering the horizon after matter-radiation equality, $T\simeq 1$, so $P\propto k^{n_s}$ with $n_s$ near one. Modes entering during radiation domination undergo suppressed growth relative to later entrants, producing a turnover near the equality scale and, well above it, $T\propto \ln (k/k_{\mathrm{eq}})/k^2$. Thus the linear spectrum asymptotes approximately to $k^{n_s-4}{\ln }^2(k/k_{\mathrm{eq}})$. Baryon acoustic oscillations superpose a weak oscillatory pattern. At sufficiently short scales nonlinear gravitational instability invalidates this linear extrapolation.

The plotted curve illustrates the shape rather than a precision cosmological fit; the bands are overlapping approximate scale sensitivities, not sharp experiment boundaries. Cosmic microwave background anisotropies constrain primordial amplitudes and transfer physics on very large through acoustic scales; converting them to a late-time matter spectrum requires a cosmological model. Galaxy redshift surveys constrain approximately $k\sim 0.01$–$0.2h{\mathrm{Mpc}}^{-1}$, with galaxy bias and redshift-space distortions modeled. Peculiar velocities constrain large-scale mass fluctuations; cluster abundances constrain the fluctuation normalization near cluster scales. Weak gravitational lensing measures projected matter on intermediate and smaller scales. The Lyman-alpha forest extends constraints to roughly $k\sim 0.3$–a few $h{\mathrm{Mpc}}^{-1}$ at high redshift, requiring gas, temperature and ionizing-background modeling. These are complementary measurements of the underlying spectrum rather than interchangeable direct Fourier measurements.

The matter fraction controls the equality turnover. From $a_{\mathrm{eq}}={\Omega }_{r,0}/{\Omega }_{m,0}$ and the Friedmann equation at equality,The measured background radiation fixes ${\Omega }_{r,0}{h}^2$, so the physical turnover scale measures approximately ${\Omega }_{m,0}{h}^2$. In units $h{\mathrm{Mpc}}^{-1}$ its location mainly constrains ${\Omega }_{m,0}h$; independent knowledge of $h$ is needed to extract ${\Omega }_{m,0}$. Standard radiation content gives the useful estimate $k_{\mathrm{eq}}\simeq 0.073{\Omega }_{m,0}{h}^2{\mathrm{Mpc}}^{-1}$, approximately $0.015h{\mathrm{Mpc}}^{-1}$ for ${\Omega }_{m,0}=0.3$, $h=0.7$.

The cosmological baryon density sets the inertia of the pre-decoupling photon–baryon fluid and changes its sound horizon and the oscillation pattern. The oscillation contrast and broadband suppression depend on the baryon fraction ${\Omega }_{b,0}/{\Omega }_{m,0}$; the acoustic positions depend on the sound horizon and the distance conversion. The cosmic microwave background peak-height pattern independently constrains ${\Omega }_{b,0}{h}^2$. Combining these with the equality scale and a distance or Hubble constant determination permits estimates of both requested density fractions. Spectral tilt, neutrino free streaming, galaxy bias and nonlinear evolution must be fitted rather than assigning every shape change to baryons. The acoustic signature was already observed in the 2005 galaxy correlation measurement; the first-year microwave-background parameter analysis demonstrates the complementary parameter constraints.

Let $t_{\ast }$ be the observation time and normalize $a(t_{\ast })=1$ temporarily. In pure radiation domination, $a(t)=(t/t_{\ast }{)}^{1/2}$ and $H_{\ast }=1/(2t_{\ast })$. With $p(t)=T_r(t)=T_{\ast }/a(t)$, the proper speed is $v=[1+(ma/T_{\ast }{)}^2{]}^{-1/2}$. Put $u=\sqrt{t/t_{\ast }}=a(t)$ in the preceding integral. Since $dt=2t_{\ast }udu$,The small-$m/T_{\ast }$ limit is $H_{\ast }^{-1}$, the radiation-era particle horizon. For $m/T_{\ast }\gg 1$, the ratio is approximately $(T_{\ast }/m)\log (2m/T_{\ast })$, retaining the distance accumulated while the particle was faster.

There is a normalization qualification: in arbitrary fixed comoving coordinates the distance is $\chi =H_{\ast }^{-1}\mathrm{arsinh}(y)/(a_{\ast }y)$, $y=m/T_{\ast }$. The expression just derived is also the physical distance $L_{\ast }=a_{\ast }\chi$ at observation. Thus it equals a comoving distance only when $a_{\ast }=1$ is used, as in the preceding part. To express it in today's convention $a_0=1$, multiply $L_{\ast }$ by $1+z_{\ast }$. This is the accumulated free-streaming distance in a radiation-dominated universe.

Write ${\omega }_M={\Omega }_M{h}^2$, where $h$ here is the dimensionless present Hubble constant. The supplied equality redshift gives $1+z_{\mathrm{eq}}\simeq 2.5\times 10^4{\omega }_M$, and $T_{\mathrm{eq}}=T_0(1+z_{\mathrm{eq}})$. For $m=30\mathrm{eV}$ the requested dimensionless ratio isThe Hubble rate in this formula is the radiation-era extrapolation used in deriving it. A unique numerical ratio cannot be chosen without ${\omega }_M$.

The printed CMB temperature contains a factor-of-ten error. Its $2.35\mathrm{meV}$ means $2.35\times 10^{-3}\mathrm{eV}$, whereas the cosmic microwave background temperature in energy units is about $2.35\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{eV}=0.235\mathrm{meV}$, corresponding to $2.725\mathrm{K}$. The temperature is supported by NASA's CMB measurements. Using the printed value gives $y_{\mathrm{eq}}\simeq 0.5106/{\omega }_M$; using the corrected value gives $y_{\mathrm{eq}}\simeq 5.106/{\omega }_M$. For the illustrative choice ${\Omega }_M=1,h=0.5$, so ${\omega }_M=0.25$, these give respectively $T_{\mathrm{eq}}\simeq 14.7$ and $1.47\mathrm{eV}$, and distance-to-Hubble-radius ratios about $0.716$ and $0.182$. This benchmark is an assumption for the estimate, not an extra parameter supplied by the paper.

For the present-day comoving length, use $H_r(z_{\mathrm{eq}})=H_0\sqrt{{\Omega }_M}(1+z_{\mathrm{eq}}{)}^{3/2}$, the radiation contribution extrapolated to equality. Restoring $c$ for the conversion and using $c/H_0\simeq 2998h^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}$ givesFor the same benchmark, this is about $54\mathrm{Mpc}$ using the printed temperature and $14\mathrm{Mpc}$ using the corrected temperature, in the prescribed representative-momentum radiation-era model.

At equality matter is no longer negligible, so these are transition-era estimates. The actual total $H_{\mathrm{eq}}$ is $\sqrt{2}{H}_r(z_{\mathrm{eq}})$; inserting it in the simple normalization would lower the length by $\sqrt{2}$, but would not constitute an exact integration through equality. An exact matter-plus-radiation treatment instead replaces the radiation integral bywith $p_0=T_0$ in the assumed model. This makes the order-one equality correction explicit. Real neutrino physical momenta in an FRW universe are distributed and their temperature need not equal the photon temperature; the calculation above follows the specified $p=T_r$ idealization.

Use the flat matter-only Einstein-de Sitter approximation for the distance-redshift relation, neglecting radiation corrections at cosmological recombination. Let $z_{\ast }$ be the cosmological recombination redshift. Adiabatic photon cooling gives $1+z_{\ast }=T_{\ast }/T_0$. The Hubble rate is $H(z)=H_0(1+z{)}^{3/2}$, so the comoving radial distance to last scattering isThe angular diameter distance is $D_A={\chi }_{\ast }/(1+z_{\ast })$. A proper Hubble radius $H_{\ast }^{-1}=H_0^{-1}(1+z_{\ast }{)}^{-3/2}$ therefore subtends the small angleThis is the angular Hubble-radius scale in an Einstein-de Sitter universe; the present Hubble constant cancels.

Taking $T_{\ast }=0.3\mathrm{eV}$ and the literal printed $T_0=2.35\mathrm{meV}$ gives $1+z_{\ast }=127.7$ and ${\theta }_H\simeq 0.0486$ radians, or $2.8$ degrees. As noted above, that present CMB energy is too large by ten. With the corrected $T_0=0.235\mathrm{meV}$, $1+z_{\ast }=1277$ andwhich gives the familiar order-one-degree scale within the assumed cosmology. Using $0.28\mathrm{eV}$ to mark a few-per-cent ionization fraction changes this only modestly. These numbers refer to the Hubble-radius scale, not its diameter. In a matter-only universe the particle-horizon radius is $2H^{-1}$ and would give twice the angle; the acoustic sound horizon is a different length again.

For fixed cosmological density parameters, the redshift drift has the form $\dot{z}=H_{0}F(z)$. Multiplying the Hubble constant changes the vertical scale of all three sketches but leaves their zeros unchanged. Thus the drift-zero redshift is independent of $H_0$ at fixed density fractions. Every model has the trivial $z=0$ zero; only the specified mixed model has a further positive zero, $z_{\ast }\simeq 2.089$. If instead physical matter and vacuum densities are held fixed while $H_0$ changes, their density fractions change too, so that is a different family of models.

Interpret the quoted values as the paper's 2006-era rounded cosmological benchmark. The Hubble constant is the present slope of the Hubble law, $v\simeq H_{0}d$ at sufficiently small redshift. A cosmic distance ladder begins with geometrical distance anchors, calibrates the Cepheid period-luminosity relation of Cepheid variables, and uses those distances to calibrate secondary indicators such as Type Ia supernovae. Distances to objects far enough away that peculiar velocities are a small fraction of recession velocity then determine the slope. Extinction, metallicity effects, distance-anchor calibration, sample selection and peculiar velocities contribute to its uncertainty.

The Hubble Space Telescope Key Project final result was $H_0=72\pm 8\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\mathrm{Mp}{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}$, combining random and systematic uncertainty, supporting the rounded value $70$. Independent approaches include distances inferred from gravitational-lens time delays and from cluster X-ray and Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect measurements; each brings different model uncertainties. Joint fits to the cosmic microwave background and large-scale structure also constrain $H_0$ within an assumed cosmological model. Thus the evidence for a value near $70$ combines calibrated distances with independent cross-checks; the approximate precision in the question should not be read as an identical uncertainty for every method.

Let $H=\dot{a}/a$ be the Hubble parameter, and normalize the scale factor by $a(t_0)=1$. The cosmological continuity equation gives ${\rho }_M={\rho }_{M0}{a}^{-3}$ for pressureless matter, whereas the cosmological constant has constant energy density ${\rho }_{\Lambda }$. The spatially flat Friedmann equation therefore becomesThe present Hubble constant is $H_0=H(t_0)$. In terms of the present critical density ${\rho }_{\mathrm{crit},0}=3H_0^2/(8\pi G)$, the matter cosmological density parameter is ${\Omega }_M={\rho }_{M0}/{\rho }_{\mathrm{crit},0}$. Spatial flatness gives ${\rho }_{\Lambda }/{\rho }_{\mathrm{crit},0}=1-{\Omega }_M$, so

As ${\Omega }_M\downarrow 0$, use $\mathrm{arsinh}z=\log (z+\sqrt{1+z^2})\sim \log (2z)$ to obtainAt fixed Hubble constant, the age of a flat matter-Lambda universe diverges logarithmically. The limiting purely vacuum-dominated de Sitter spacetime has an exponential scale factor and no Big Bang at a finite value of cosmic time in this flat slicing.

Use units with $c=1$. For the flat FRW metric, the Friedmann equation is $H^2=8\pi G\rho /3+\Lambda /3$, where $H=\dot{a}/a$ is the Hubble parameter. The cosmological continuity equation for a separately conserved component with constant equation of state $P=w\rho$ gives $\rho \propto a^{-3(1+w)}$. Consequently radiation in cosmology scales as $a^{-4}$, pressureless matter as $a^{-3}$, and cosmological constant energy is constant. With $a_0=1$, define the present critical density and cosmological density parameters byThe Hubble constant $H_0$ measures the expansion rate today. Here ${\Omega }_r$ includes photons and relativistic neutrinos, ${\Omega }_m$ includes baryons and cold dark matter, and ${\Omega }_{\Lambda }$ measures the vacuum contribution. Spatial flatness implies ${\Omega }_r+{\Omega }_m+{\Omega }_{\Lambda }=1$. ThusSince conformal time satisfies $d\tau =dt/a$, we have $a^{\prime }=a\dot{a}=a^{2}H$. Multiplication by $a^4$ provesFor an exam-level estimate, $H_0=100h\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\mathrm{Mp}{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}$ with $h\simeq 0.7$, ${\Omega }_m\simeq 0.3$, ${\Omega }_{\Lambda }\simeq 0.7$, and the specified radiation in cosmology gives ${\Omega }_r=4.2\times 10^{-5}{h}^{-2}\simeq 8.6\times 10^{-5}$. These are rounded illustrative flat-universe values; precision cosmological density parameters depend on the fitted model. For comparison, the base flat-model fit in Planck 2018 cosmological parameters gives $H_0\simeq 67.4\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\mathrm{Mp}{\mathrm{c}}^{-1}$ and ${\Omega }_m\simeq 0.315$.

In an Einstein-de Sitter universe, $H(a)=H_0{a}^{-3/2}$, so direct integration of $dt=da/(aH)$ gives $t(a)=2a^{3/2}/(3H_0)$. At $z=8$, $a=1/9$ and $a^{3/2}=1/27$. The fraction of the present age of an FLRW universe and the available formation interval are thereforeThis is only about $3.7\%$ of the present age. The available interval is $t(8)$ itself, not $t_0-t(8)$, which would instead be the lookback time.

For ${\Omega }_{m,0}=0.3$ and ${\Omega }_{\Lambda ,0}=0.7$, at the same Hubble constant, the exact integral givesThus the formation interval is longer, by about a factor of $1.83$. There is also a direct comparison: for $0<a<1$, $0.3a^{-3}+0.7<a^{-3}$, so $H(a)$ is smaller than its Einstein-de Sitter universe value at fixed $a$, and integrating $da/(aH)$ gives a greater age. At $z=8$ the leading matter-era result is $t\simeq 2/[3H_0\sqrt{0.3}(1+z{)}^{3/2}]$; the smaller matter density, with the same $H_0$, explains nearly all the increase.

Choose a fixed $H_{\mathrm{ref}}>0$, and write $h(H_0)=-5{\log }_{10}(H_0/H_{\mathrm{ref}})$ and $d_s(w,{\Omega }_M)=\mu (z_s;H_{\mathrm{ref}},w,{\Omega }_M)$. The predicted magnitude is $M_0+h(H_0)+d_s$. Thus the likelihood depends on $M_0,H_0$ only through $\beta =M_0+h(H_0)$, the absolute magnitude–Hubble constant degeneracy. Since $d{M}_0=d\beta$ at fixed $H_0$, integrating with a flat density over the entire real line removes $H_0$.

Explicitly, let $a_s=(v+r_s{)}^{-1}$, $S={\sum }_s{a}_s$, $x_s={\hat{m}}_s-d_s$, $\bar{x}=S^{-1}{\sum }_s{a}_s{x}_s$ and $Q={\sum }_s{a}_s(x_s-\bar{x}{)}^2$. Completing the square gives ${\sum }_s{a}_s(x_s-\beta {)}^2=Q+S(\beta -\bar{x}{)}^2$, so flat-prior elimination of a Gaussian common mean yieldsindependently of $H_0$. The proportionality includes the arbitrary constant of the flat prior, which cancels within this posterior analysis.

If the remaining posterior integral is finite, prior independence gives $p(H_0\mid \mathcal{D})\propto p(H_0)$ and hence $\boxed{p(H_0\mid \mathcal{D})=p(H_0)}$: these data supply no marginal update of the Hubble constant. The quoted Gaussian is consequently retained with its stated $a,b$. Strictly, the model uses $H_0>0$ inside a logarithm, so the Gaussian prior must be restricted and normalized on that domain:where $\varphi ,\Phi$ are the standard normal density and distribution function. Ignoring its negligible negative tail gives the stated untruncated Gaussian approximation.