Abstract: The simplest ΛCDM model provides a good fit to a large span of cosmological data but harbors large areas of phenomenology and ignorance. With the improvement of the number and the accuracy of observations, discrepancies among key cosmological parameters of the model have emerged. The most statistically significant tension is the 4 sigma to 6 sigma disagreement between predictions of the Hubble constant, H (0), made by the early time probes in concert with the 'vanilla' ΛCDM cosmological model, and a number of late time, model-independent determinations of H (0) from local measurements of distances and redshifts. The high precision and consistency of the data at both ends present strong challenges to the possible solution space and demands a hypothesis with enough rigor to explain multiple observations-whether these invoke new physics, unexpected large-scale structures or multiple, unrelated errors. A thorough review of the problem including a discussion of recent Hubble constant estimates and a summary of the proposed theoretical solutions is presented here. We include more than 1000 references, indicating that the interest in this area has grown considerably just during the last few years. We classify the many proposals to resolve the tension in these categories: early dark energy, late dark energy, dark energy models with 6 degrees of freedom and their extensions, models with extra relativistic degrees of freedom, models with extra interactions, unified cosmologies, modified gravity, inflationary models, modified recombination history, physics of the critical phenomena, and alternative proposals. Some are formally successful, improving the fit to the data in light of their additional degrees of freedom, restoring agreement within 1-2 sigma between Planck 2018, using the cosmic microwave background power spectra data, baryon acoustic oscillations, Pantheon SN data, and R20, the latest SH0ES Team Riess, et al (2021 Astrophys. J. 908 L6) measurement of the Hubble constant (H (0) = 73.2 +/- 1.3 km s(-1) Mpc(-1) at 68% confidence level). However, there are many more unsuccessful models which leave the discrepancy well above the 3 sigma disagreement level. In many cases, reduced tension comes not simply from a change in the value of H (0) but also due to an increase in its uncertainty due to degeneracy with additional physics, complicating the picture and pointing to the need for additional probes. While no specific proposal makes a strong case for being highly likely or far better than all others, solutions involving early or dynamical dark energy, neutrino interactions, interacting cosmologies, primordial magnetic fields, and modified gravity provide the best options until a better alternative comes along.

Abstract: We analyse the anisotropic clustering of massive galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) Data Release 9 (DR9) sample, which consists of 264-283 galaxies in the redshift range 0.43 < z < 0.7 spanning 3275 deg(2). Both peculiar velocities and errors in the assumed redshiftdistance relation (AlcockPaczynski effect) generate correlations between clustering amplitude and orientation with respect to the line of sight. Together with the sharp baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) standard ruler, our measurements of the broad-band shape of the monopole and quadrupole correlation functions simultaneously constrain the comoving angular diameter distance (2190 +/- 61 Mpc) to z = 0.57, the Hubble expansion rate at z = 0.57 (92.4 +/- 4.5 km s(-1) Mpc(-1)) and the growth rate of structure at that same redshift (d(sigma 8)/d ln a = 0.43 +/- 0.069). Our analysis provides the best current direct determination of both DA and H in galaxy clustering data using this technique. If we further assume a cold dark matter expansion history, our growth constraint tightens to d(sigma 8)/d ln a = 0.415 +/- 0.034. In combination with the cosmic microwave background, our measurements of D-A,H and d(sigma 8)/d ln a all separately require dark energy at z > 0.57, and when combined imply Omega(A) = 0.74 +/- 0.016, independent of the Universe's evolution at z < 0.57. All of these constraints assume scale-independent linear growth, and assume general relativity to compute both O(10 per cent) non-linear model corrections and our errors. In our companion paper, Samushia et al., we explore further cosmological implications of these observations.