Can a Proposed Instrument on the Extremely Large Telescope Help Settle the Hubble Tension?

Two teams, two methods, two answers. When the Planck satellite reads the cosmic microwave background — the afterglow of the Big Bang — it infers that the universe expands by about 67 kilometres per second per megaparsec. When the SH0ES collaboration measures Cepheid variable stars and Type Ia supernovae in the nearby universe, it gets about 73. The gap has held steady for years, at a statistical significance of roughly 4 to 6 sigma depending on the datasets and assumptions adopted. Either one side hides an unknown error, or the standard cosmological model is missing something.

That is the puzzle a new study in New Astronomy takes aim at. Led by Matilde Signorini of ESA's European Space Research and Technology Centre, the paper is part of the SHARP Science Book special issue. It proposes using SHARP, a next-generation near-infrared spectrograph for the 39-metre Extremely Large Telescope, to turn a niche technique for weighing black holes into a precision tool for cosmology. The authors argue that SHARP's NEXUS multi-object mode is key.

A ruler that doesn't need calibrating

The technique at the heart of the proposal is called SARM — Spectroastrometry and Reverberation Mapping. It works because active galactic nuclei, the bright cores of galaxies powered by feeding supermassive black holes, contain a region of dense gas called the Broad-Line Region. This gas is gravitationally bound to the black hole and photoionised by the accretion disc, producing broad emission lines, but it is far too small to photograph directly: a few light-days to light-months across.

Two independent measurements crack the problem. Reverberation mapping watches the AGN's continuum flicker brighter, then waits for the surrounding gas clouds to answer with a delayed brightening in their emission lines. That time delay, multiplied by the speed of light, gives the region's physical size. Meanwhile, the GRAVITY instrument at the Very Large Telescope Interferometer measures the same region's angular size on the sky by combining light from four 8-metre Unit Telescopes with micro-arcsecond astrometric precision. Divide the physical size by the angular size and you get an angular-diameter distance — a geometric distance that does not rely on a cosmic distance ladder or any cross-calibration.

Calibration-independent matters enormously here. The distance-ladder measurements that produce the high value of the Hubble constant are built from the Cepheid-calibrated Type Ia supernova ladder described in the paper. A purely geometric measurement sidesteps the cross-calibration chain.

Current SARM implementations, however, are limited. In 2025, a team led by Yan-Rong Li published a Hubble constant from four quasars: 69, with an uncertainty of about plus 12 or minus 10 — roughly 16 percent precision, far from the few-percent level the paper identifies as competitive. Part of the problem is that the two measurements use different emission lines. The reverberation mapping is done in optical light, using the hydrogen Balmer line H-beta. The interferometric angular size is measured in the near-infrared, using Paschen-alpha or Brackett-gamma. Combining them assumes both lines trace the same gas. But reverberation studies have established clear radial stratification in the Broad-Line Region, with different lines responding on different timescales from slightly different radii. Any mismatch between what the two techniques see propagates straight into the distance.

Doing both measurements on the same infrared line would remove that systematic. But infrared hydrogen lines are faint — under typical conditions, Paschen-alpha is about 30 percent the strength of H-beta, and Brackett-gamma is only about 3 percent. Monitoring them at the signal-to-noise and cadence needed is punishingly slow with current infrared facilities, restricting same-line SARM to only a handful of exceptionally bright AGN.

Thirty seconds versus one hour

This is where SHARP enters the picture. The authors used the SHARP Exposure Time Calculator (ETC v0.6) to estimate what the instrument's collecting area and adaptive optics could do. For Ark 120, a bright nearby AGN with a K-band magnitude of about 9.8 (Vega), IRTF/SpeX requires roughly a one-hour exposure per epoch to reach a signal-to-noise of about 25 on Brackett-gamma at moderate spectral resolution under good atmospheric conditions. SHARP, the authors calculate, would reach a signal-to-noise of about 270 per resolution element in a single 30-second exposure, because the ELT's collecting area exceeds IRTF's by a factor of about 150 and its adaptive optics reduce the effective sky background per resolution element by more than an order of magnitude.

That changes the observing strategy. Bright targets could be monitored as low-cost filler programmes, visited repeatedly over months to years, at a cadence driven mostly by the 15 to 20 minutes of telescope preset and adaptive-optics acquisition overhead per epoch. When a target flares, higher-cadence follow-up could be triggered to nail down the time lag.

The second result concerns fainter AGN. The paper models a hypothetical target at redshift 0.1 with K-band magnitude 12, representative of the fainter sources the upgraded GRAVITY+ interferometer is expected to observe. SHARP could reach RM-quality signal-to-noise in 720 seconds of total exposure, split into 24 exposures of 30 seconds. Even at the GRAVITY+ sensitivity limit, K of about 13, the required integration is roughly 1,050 seconds — about 15 to 20 minutes per epoch — for a signal-to-noise of about 25.

What it would take to close the gap

Multi-object spectroscopy supplies the third ingredient. Current near-infrared campaigns calibrate their brightness measurements using narrow emission lines like [S III] at 9531 angstroms, achieving 3 to 5 percent precision. That is comparable to the very variability the astronomers are trying to detect — a 2019 study based on a 10-year monitoring campaign of the quasar 3C 273, for instance, measured broad-line flux flickering of only about 5 percent. SHARP's NEXUS mode could observe the AGN and several reference stars in the same field simultaneously, enabling relative flux calibration of about 1 percent or better.

Simulations by Yu-Yang Songsheng and collaborators in 2021 suggested that about 60 targets with per-source reverberation uncertainties around 10 percent could constrain the Hubble constant to roughly 2 percent. That would be competitive with existing independent probes such as water megamasers in nearby galaxies, which give 73.9 with about 4 percent precision, and strong-lensing time delays, which recently produced 71.6 with asymmetric uncertainties of +3.9 and −3.3. The GRAVITY+ sample spans K-band magnitudes 9 to 13 (Vega) and redshifts up to about 0.2, implying Broad-Line Region sizes of roughly 10 to 200 light-days and observed-frame time lags of weeks to months. Monitoring at 5- to 15-day cadence over one to three years would be needed.

It is important to be clear about what this paper is and is not. SHARP is proposed, not built. The results are forecasts from an exposure time calculator and simulations, not measurements. The authors stress that residual systematic uncertainties from Broad-Line Region modelling assumptions, line stratification, and the stochastic nature of AGN variability will ultimately limit the accuracy of individual distance measurements and must be characterized through the growing sample itself. Separately, the same data could help test how the virial factor used in black-hole mass estimates depends on BLR structure, inclination, and accretion properties.

If the forecasts hold, though, SARM stops being a curiosity for a few bright quasars and becomes a systematic probe. Tens of AGN, spanning a range of luminosities, each contributing a geometric distance independent of the distance ladder. The Hubble tension has persisted despite proposed explanations. The 39-metre Extremely Large Telescope, staring at the hearts of distant galaxies for tens of seconds at a time for bright targets, may provide the independent cross-check that tells us whether the discrepancy is a systematic error or new physics.