Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Degeneracy — where it appears

The state of a gas compressed until the exclusion principle rather than thermal motion supplies its pressure. The pressure it supplies rises with density and not with temperature, which puts a hard upper limit on the mass such an object can support.

Named by 33 essays across 8 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A vector that does not change, drawn five times. The Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector A = v × L − GM r̂, constructed at five points of one orbit at e = 0.45 under a force ∝ r^−2, each drawn from the body rather than from the focus so that its length and direction can be compared point by point. Under the inverse square every one of them is the same vector: identical to machine precision in length and in direction. Its length is 0.4500, which is the eccentricity, and it points at pericentre — so the orbit's orientation is a conserved quantity and not a constant of integration, which is why the ellipse does not turn.

The third thing that is conserved

Energy fixes an orbit's size and angular momentum fixes its shape. Neither fixes which way it points — so a curve that closes needs a third conserved quantity, and only two force laws in the universe supply one.

orbits · Conic sections One measured number, and every pair of masses that produces it. The plane of the two component masses of an inspiralling binary, with three curves of constant chirp mass across it. The middle one is GW150914's value of 28.7 solar masses, and the chirp mass recovered from the coordinates of the drawn curve varies along its whole length by 7.4e-14 per cent — which is the point: every binary on that line radiates the same frequency sweep at leading order, so the early inspiral cannot tell them apart. Two of them are marked. An equal pair of 33.0 and 33.0 solar masses and a lopsided pair of 63.6 and 18.4 sit on the same contour, and their total masses differ by a factor of 1.24. What separates them is the mass ratio, which enters the phasing only at the first post-Newtonian order, suppressed by the square of the orbital speed in units of the speed of light — small through the hundreds of cycles that carry most of the signal, and appreciable only in the last few, where that speed approaches a third of c. So the chirp mass is a measurement and the individual masses are an inference from the end of the signal, which is exactly the part a detector's high-frequency noise eats first.

One number where two masses were

The hundreds of orbits an inspiralling binary completes inside a detector's band depend on its two masses only through one combination of them. Every pair on that contour radiates an identical sweep, so the early signal — which carries nearly all the signal-to-noise — cannot say which pair it was.

gravitation · Gravitational waves One path, five numbers. Left: the apparent path of a star over 4 years, with a proper motion of 193 mas a year and a parallax of 50 mas, at ecliptic latitude 42°. It is one curve and there is nothing in the sky it can be compared against — the reference stars have paths of their own. Right: the same path with a straight line taken out of it. What is left is an ellipse of semi-major axis 50.0 mas and semi-minor axis 33.5 mas, closed and repeating once a year. The two are separated by their time signatures and by nothing else: proper motion is secular and parallax is annual, in a phase the Earth's position fixes in advance. That is why the five parameters can be told apart at all, and why an astrometric catalogue quotes five rather than two — a position without them is a position at one instant, which is not a direction to anything.

Five numbers from one wiggle

A star's path across a plate is a straight line with a one-year ellipse laid on it. Nothing measures either alone — one fit yields five parameters at once, and they are separable only because their time signatures differ.

sky · Parallax A furnace with the thermostat taken out. Left, the two pressures in a red giant's helium core at 10⁶ g/cm³. The ideal-gas pressure rises with temperature, as the whole regulation of a star depends on it doing; the degenerate electron pressure is a horizontal line, because the exclusion principle does not know the temperature. At the ignition point near 10⁸ K the degenerate term is 5.1 times the gas term, so a temperature rise there raises the total pressure by almost nothing and the core does not expand. Right, what that costs. Both curves start at the same temperature with the same triple-alpha rate, whose logarithmic slope is 41 — the famous T⁴⁰, differentiated here rather than quoted. The regulated core settles; the degenerate one, with nowhere to put the extra energy, goes vertical. The flash reaches 10¹⁰ solar luminosities for a few seconds and not one photon of it is seen: every erg goes into lifting the degeneracy, and the star's visible response is to become fainter and settle on the horizontal branch.

The resonance that had to exist

Three alpha particles cannot meet at once, and the two-body intermediate falls apart in 8×10⁻¹⁷ seconds. That is a hundred thousand times longer than a crossing time, which is just enough — provided a nuclear level sits at 7.65 MeV. Hoyle argued from the existence of carbon to the existence of the level, and it was found where he said.

stars · Fusion From 1.667 to 1.343, and the limit is in the second number. The local slope Γ = d ln P / d ln ρ of the exact degenerate electron equation of state, against density, differentiated numerically from the drawn pressure rather than quoted. It is 1.6666 at 10⁴ kg/m³ — the 5/3 of a non-relativistic Fermi gas — and 1.3430 at 10¹² — the 4/3 of a relativistic one — falling monotonically between, and passing 1.5 at 3.63·10⁹ kg/m³. Nothing gives way at either end; the electrons simply run out of room to go faster, because they are already near c. The mass limit is in the exponent and not in the strength. Hydrostatic balance for a polytrope of index Γ gives M ∝ ρ_c^(3Γ−4)/2, so at Γ = 4/3 the exponent is zero: the mass no longer depends on the central density at all, and there is exactly one mass a fully relativistic degenerate star can have — 1.459 M☉ at μ_e = 2. Above it, squeezing harder buys pressure that rises more slowly than gravity does, and there is nothing left to stop at.

The mass a cold star cannot exceed

A degenerate star's radius falls as its mass rises, and nothing in that relation suggests a limit. Making the electrons relativistic softens the pressure law until pressure and gravity scale the same way with radius — and the radius drops out of the balance, leaving one mass and no room to argue.

stars · Degeneracy A fold 0.06 Einstein times wide, and two configurations that make the same one. A binary lens of mass ratio 0.003 at a projected separation of 1.5 Einstein radii. Top left: the source plane, with the caustic — the set of source positions at which the magnification is formally infinite — and the track of a background star across it. A single lens has no such curve; it magnifies smoothly and diverges only at one point. A second mass makes the lens mapping fold, and the fold has edges: crossing one, the number of images changes from 3 to 5, because a pair is created out of nothing on the critical curve. The small closed curve near the origin is the central caustic, always there; the larger one at 0.83 Einstein radii is the planetary caustic, and its distance from the origin is s − 1/s, which is where the planet's own image lies. Top right: the central caustic drawn twice, once for s = 1.5 and once for s = 0.667. They are 0.0184 and 0.0169 Einstein radii across and they lie on top of each other. That is not a coincidence of these numbers: to the order that a central-caustic anomaly is measured, a close binary and a wide one with the reciprocal separation produce the same perturbation, so an event with only a central anomaly returns two separations and no way to choose. Below: the light curve along the track. The smooth part is what a single lens of the same total mass would do; the spikes are the two crossings, 0.06 Einstein times apart, so a few hours inside an event lasting a month. The two curves differ in one thing only — the size of the source. A point source diverges at each fold and reaches 27; a source of angular radius 0.006 Einstein radii averages over its own disc and reaches 9 — an eighth of a source radius inside the fold the two are 8 and 4, with the divergence replaced by a rounded shoulder whose width is the source's own diameter. Everywhere else in this collection the finite size of a star is a nuisance that degrades a measurement. Here it is the ruler: the fold is a straight edge of known sharpness sweeping across a disc, so the shape of that shoulder gives the source's angular radius, and dividing it by the crossing time gives the angular Einstein radius — which is the one quantity a light curve otherwise cannot supply.

A light curve with a fold in it

A single lens magnifies smoothly. A second mass makes the lens mapping fold, and a fold has an edge — a curve across which two images appear out of nothing and the magnification formally diverges. Crossing it turns the finite size of the source star from a nuisance into a ruler.

exoplanets · Microlensing A magnification, and a spike inside it. The brightness of a background star as a foreground one passes in front of it. The smooth curve is exact: a point mass magnifies a point source by (u² + 2)/(u√(u² + 4)), which peaks at 6.7 for this track. The spike is the planet, of mass ratio 0.001, lensing one of the two images. Its duration is the Einstein time scaled by √q — about 23 hours against 30 days — so the whole planetary signal is a few hours in an event lasting a month, and it never repeats. The deviation is drawn in the approximation that the planet lenses the image in isolation; a real caustic crossing has structure this smooths over, and its true height is set by the source's size rather than by the geometry.

A star magnified by a planet nobody will see again

Microlensing weighs a planet by the way its gravity bends light around it. The measurement lasts a few hours, cannot be repeated, and is the only one that does not require the planet's star to be visible at all.

exoplanets · Microlensing Three mass models, 2.3× apart in the disc, agreeing to 3.1 km/s everywhere. NGC 3198's rotation curve, decomposed three ways. The stellar disc has been scaled by 0.2, 0.65, 1.1 times its photometric mass, and for each scaling the halo's asymptotic speed and core radius have been fitted — not chosen — to reproduce the same total. The heavy curve and the marked points are that total: the three models agree with it to 3.08 km/s at every radius, well inside a measurement error of 4.5. The light curves below are the disc's own contribution, and at 17 kpc they differ by a factor of 2.3 — from 36 to 85 km/s — with the halo taking up exactly the slack, 126 down to 97. The curve is one function and the decomposition asks for two. The free parameter is the mass-to-light ratio of the stars, which the kinematics never measures, and it is why a "maximum disc" fit and a halo-dominated fit are both published for the same galaxy. The degeneracy does have one hard edge: scaling the disc to 1.35 times its photometric mass cannot be fitted by any halo in the family — the best leaves 5.6 km/s rms — because past the maximum-disc solution the stars alone already overshoot the curve and a halo cannot have negative mass. That is the one thing a rotation curve says about M/L on its own, and it is an upper limit. What separates the rest has to come from somewhere else: the vertical velocity dispersion of the disc, which weighs the stars alone; gas-rich dwarfs where there is scarcely a disc to argue about; or the baryonic Tully–Fisher relation, which ties the halo's speed to the baryons and would be a coincidence if the two were independent.

The same curve, two galaxies

A rotation curve is one function of radius. Decomposing it asks for two — how much of the speed is the stars and how much is the halo — and the mass-to-light ratio that trades one against the other is not measured by anything in the kinematics. A maximum disc and a halo-dominated fit run through identical points.

galaxies · Rotation curves A sphere reconstructed as a spheroid, and two distortions 0.15 apart. Left: the acoustic scale in the plane of separation across the line of sight against separation along it, one quadrant of it. In the cosmology that actually holds, the sound horizon is a sphere of 99.0 h⁻¹ Mpc and its locus here is a quarter circle. That is the whole content of the Alcock–Paczyński test: nothing about the early universe distinguishes the radial direction from the transverse one, so any departure from a circle is a statement about the observer's arithmetic rather than about the ruler. Converting angles into transverse separations needs the transverse comoving distance and converting redshift intervals into radial ones needs H(z), so assuming distances 1.1 times too large and rates 0.94 times too small returns an ellipse of axis ratio 0.855 — and the ellipticity measures that distance times the expansion rate over c, in which the sound horizon has cancelled. A ruler of unknown length still measures a shape. The third curve is the difficulty: peculiar velocities also distort the same correlation function along the same axis, squashing it by 1/(1+β) = 0.704 for β = 0.42, and a squashing is a squashing. Separating a geometric distortion from a dynamical one is the entire art of the measurement, and it is done by using the fact that they have different dependences on scale — the velocities act on the broad-band shape and the ruler is a feature. Right and below: the two numbers the same feature gives at each redshift. Across the line of sight, the transverse distance divided by the sound horizon; along it, c divided by the expansion rate times the sound horizon. Two functions of the expansion history, from one bump in one correlation function, and their agreement with a single model is one of the sharper consistency tests in the subject.

A ruler measured along and across

The sound horizon is a sphere, and a sphere in a redshift survey is measured twice over — across the line of sight it gives an angle, along it a redshift interval. Two different functions of the cosmology out of one feature, and their ratio is a measurement with no ruler in it at all.

cosmology · Baryon acoustic oscillations A transit depth of 1.200 per cent for a planet of area 1.000 per cent. Three transits of the same planet across the same star, differing only in how the star's brightness falls toward its edge. A planet of radius ratio 0.1 covers 1.000 per cent of the stellar disc's area, and if the disc were uniformly bright that would be the depth. It is not uniformly bright: a sight line near the limb leaves the photosphere at a shallow angle and therefore from a cooler layer, so the edge is dimmer than the centre, and a planet crossing near the middle blocks light that is brighter than average. The transit drawn with realistic coefficients is 1.200 per cent deep — 20 per cent deeper than the area — and it is also rounder, because the covered brightness changes through the crossing instead of staying flat. The consequence is stated in the numbers beside the curves. Each is a least-squares fit of the radius ratio to the realistic curve, performed with a different assumed limb-darkening law, and the recovered radius moves by up to 3.6 per cent depending on which law is assumed. Fitting with the law the curve was made from returns the input to five figures, which is the control: the bias is the mis-specification and not the fitter. Since the coefficients come from a model atmosphere rather than from the light curve, every published planetary radius carries a systematic from stellar physics that no amount of photometric precision removes — and it is the dominant one for the best-measured planets. The picture holds the impact parameter fixed; a grazing transit is worse, because it samples only the limb, where the disagreement between laws is largest.

The depth is not the area

A planet covering one per cent of its star's disc does not make a transit one per cent deep. The star is brighter in the middle, so a planet crossing the middle blocks more than its share — and the correction depends on coefficients that come from a stellar atmosphere model rather than from the light curve.

starlight · Limb darkening One mass and one radius, and every composition that gives them. A planet of 5 Earth masses and 1.6 Earth radii, and the compositions consistent with it. The horizontal axis is the fraction of the planet's mass in an iron core and the vertical axis the fraction in a water layer outside the rock; the heavy curve is every pair that reproduces the measurement exactly, and the band around it is what the 0.05 Earth-radius uncertainty allows. The answer is a curve, not a point, and that is not a failure of precision. Two numbers cannot determine three components: a planet can be made denser by adding iron or lighter by adding water, and along this locus the two changes cancel exactly. The ends of it are not small variations on one planet. At the left is a body with no iron at all and 0 per cent of its mass in water; at the right, one with an iron core like Mercury's and 23 per cent water. Those have different formation histories, different interiors, different everything, and the same mass and radius to the precision anybody can measure them. Breaking the degeneracy needs an observation that is neither a mass nor a radius. The usual one is a transmission spectrum, which measures the atmosphere's scale height and so its mean molecular weight — a hydrogen envelope and a steam envelope differ by a factor of nine in that, and the corresponding factor in the size of the spectral features. What the picture assumes is that the planet is differentiated into clean layers, which is the standard assumption and is false in detail: water dissolves into silicate melt at these pressures, and a mixed interior sits at neither end of this curve.

One density, and every planet that has it

A mass and a radius are two numbers, and a differentiated planet has at least three components. The set of compositions matching a measurement is therefore a curve rather than a point — and its two ends are a body with no iron and half its mass in water, and a body with a Mercury-like core.

exoplanets · Planet composition The field nobody measured, and the reason the number is quoted anyway. The energy content of a radio source against the field strength assumed for it, both logarithmic. A synchrotron luminosity constrains only the product of the relativistic electron content and the field: a bright source can be many particles in a weak field or few in a strong one, and no observation of the radiation distinguishes them. The two curves are the two costs. Assuming a weak field is expensive in particles, because the particle energy needed rises as the field to the minus three halves; assuming a strong one is expensive in the field itself, which rises as B². Their sum has a minimum at 5.0e-5 gauss, and at that minimum the particle energy is exactly four thirds of the field energy — which is where the word equipartition comes from, and it is a property of where a curve turns rather than a statement about nature. The estimate is quoted because it is robust: the minimum-energy field goes as luminosity to the two sevenths, so an order of magnitude of ignorance about the luminosity is a factor of 1.93 in the answer. It is also, for the same reason, nearly uninformative — a number that hardly moves is a number that hardly measures.

A minimum that was mistaken for a principle

A radio source's brightness fixes the product of its particle content and its field, and nothing about the radiation separates them. What is quoted instead is the field that makes the total energy least — and at that field the particles happen to carry four thirds of what the field does, which is where the word equipartition comes from and why it is not a physical assumption at all.

starlight · Synchrotron radiation One amplitude, and every point on this curve fits it. The set of distances and inclinations that produce the same measured amplitude in one detector. A binary seen face-on radiates most strongly along its spin axis, so it can be twice as far away as an edge-on binary and still arrive with the same strain — the curve is (1 + cos²ι)/2 and the factor between its ends is exactly two. Nothing in a single detector's data distinguishes the two ends. What makes this worse rather than merely awkward is that the prior pulls the other way: an isotropically oriented population has half its members beyond 60 degrees, so most binaries really are closer to edge-on, and a posterior that combines a flat likelihood along this curve with that prior returns a distance biased low with an error bar that understates the range. The whole business of standard-siren cosmology is the business of cutting across this curve.

A distance tangled with an angle

A gravitational wave carries its own distance, with no ladder underneath it and nothing to calibrate. What it also carries, inseparably, is the orientation of the orbit that made it — and one detector cannot tell a nearby binary seen edge-on from one twice as far away seen face-on.

gravitation · Gravitational waves One measurement, one line, and every point on it is an interior. The Love number against the quality factor, both logarithmic. An orbital measurement — a moon observed to be receding, a spin observed to be slowing — determines only the ratio of the two, so it picks out a diagonal band rather than a point, and every interior along that band reproduces the observation exactly. A body that deforms twice as easily and dissipates half as efficiently is indistinguishable from one that does the opposite. What breaks it is a measurement of the deformation on its own: a spacecraft tracking the body's gravity field through a tidal cycle measures k₂ directly, which is a vertical line here, and the intersection gives Q = 5.36·10⁴. The uncertainty on that answer is the two fractional errors added in quadrature, 20 per cent, and it is dominated by whichever of the two was worse — which for every body in the solar system is the orbital rate rather than the Love number.

A heat flow that depends on a number nobody can compute

Every tidal rate in astronomy — a moon receding, a spin slowing, an orbit circularising, a satellite melting — is proportional to one combination of two quantities that no orbital measurement can separate. One of them describes how much a body deforms and the other how badly it leaks, and only a spacecraft can tell them apart.

gravitation · Tidal heating Two diagnostics, two bands, and a crossing to 49 kelvin. The plane of effective temperature against surface gravity, with the constraints from two spectroscopic diagnostics drawn as bands. The wings of a hydrogen line are broadened by collisions, so they respond steeply to the gravity and weakly to the temperature: a narrow, steep band. An ionisation balance — requiring that the same element give the same abundance from its neutral and its singly ionised lines — responds to both, and its band is much shallower. Neither diagnostic determines either quantity on its own. Where the two cross is the answer, and the size of the crossing region is set by the band widths divided by the difference of the slopes — so two diagnostics that respond similarly give a long, thin, nearly useless error region however precise each one is. Choosing diagnostics that disagree in their sensitivities is the whole of the art.

A temperature and a gravity that trade against each other

A stellar spectrum contains the star's temperature, its surface gravity and its composition, and no single feature in it contains only one of the three. Every diagnostic is a band in the parameter plane rather than a point, and the answer is where the bands cross — which makes choosing diagnostics that disagree in their sensitivities the whole of the art.

starlight · Spectra Three causes, three shapes, one residual. An eclipse-timing residual: the observed minus the computed time of each eclipse, against cycle number, in days. Three effects are superposed and each has its own functional form. A slow change in the orbital period — from mass transfer or from magnetic braking — integrates to a parabola. A third body in a wide orbit moves the whole binary towards and away from the observer, so its light-travel time adds a sinusoid at the third body's period. And an eccentric orbit whose apsides are precessing moves the two eclipses in opposite directions, which is a sinusoid that changes sign between primary and secondary minima. The last is why both eclipses have to be timed: a third body moves them together and apsidal motion moves them apart, and a series of primary minima alone cannot tell the two apart at all.

Three causes with three shapes in one curve

The times of eclipse in a binary star are a clock, and the clock runs late and early. Three completely different things make it do so — a third body, a changing period, and a slowly turning orbit — and they are separable only because each imposes a different shape on the residual.

stars · Binary stars A transit that lasts 4.0 times longer at one end of the orbit than the other. The duration of a transit, relative to what a circular orbit of the same period around the same star would give, against the orientation of the orbit. A planet transiting near perihelion is moving fastest and its transit is shortest; one transiting near aphelion is slowest and its transit is longest. The two extremes are exact reciprocals — the circular duration is their geometric mean, whatever the eccentricity — and at e = 0.6 they differ by a factor of (1+e)/(1−e), which is 4.0. That is an enormous, easily measured effect, and it means a transit duration is not a stellar density unless the orbit is circular. Turned round, it is a measurement: given a stellar density from asteroseismology or from a parallax and a spectrum, the duration anomaly gives the eccentricity — from photometry alone, with no radial velocities at all.

A duration that measures an eccentricity

A transit's length is a measurement of how fast the planet was moving when it crossed, and that speed depends on where it was on its orbit. For a circular orbit the duration gives the star's density; for an eccentric one it gives the density times a factor of up to four — and if the density is known independently, the factor is the eccentricity.

exoplanets · Transits A bump that crosses the line from -41 to 25 km/s. The residual of a rotationally broadened line profile during a transit, drawn at five epochs and offset vertically. The planet covers a strip of the stellar disc whose radial velocity is the projected rotation at that position, so it removes light from one velocity and leaves a bump in the residual there. As the planet crosses, the bump travels across the profile — and where it starts and ends is set by the geometry of the chord. An orbit aligned with the star's equator gives a track symmetric about the line centre; this one, tilted by 30 degrees, runs from -41 to 25 kilometres a second and is not. The measurement is of a path rather than of a centroid, which is why it works on rapidly rotating stars where the velocity anomaly is swamped by the line's own width.

A shadow crossing a rotating line

A transiting planet hides a strip of a rotating star, and that strip has a definite velocity. So the planet removes light from one place in the line profile and leaves a bump there — a bump that travels across the line as the transit proceeds, tracing the path the planet took across the disc.

exoplanets · Spin–orbit alignment Two bands 2.1 standard deviations apart, and neither is a point. The plane of the matter density against the amplitude of matter fluctuations, with the constraints from a weak-lensing survey and from the microwave background drawn as bands. Lensing measures the shear produced by structure along the line of sight, and that shear depends on how much matter there is and on how clumpy it is in a fixed combination — more matter arranged less clumpily gives the same signal. The locus is a power law of exponent one half, and the combination it fixes is written S₈. The two bands are separated by 2.1 standard deviations, and whatever that separation is, it is a statement about the growth of structure between recombination and now rather than about either measurement's precision. Neither band alone determines either quantity, which is why the disagreement is quoted in the combination rather than in the parameters.

Two parameters that lensing measures as one

A weak-lensing survey measures how much the shapes of distant galaxies are distorted by the matter in front of them, and that distortion depends on how much matter there is and on how clumpily it is arranged. The two enter as a product. What the survey determines is one number, and the disagreement between surveys and the microwave background is stated in that number because neither measures either quantity alone.

galaxies · Weak lensing Three mass models, one rotation curve. Rotation curves for three decompositions of the same galaxy, from a disc contributing 30 per cent of the outer rotation to one contributing 95. Each is the quadrature sum of a stellar disc, whose shape is fixed by the light distribution and whose amplitude is an unknown mass-to-light ratio, and a dark halo with parameters of its own. All three reproduce the same flat outer rotation, because the halo's amplitude is adjusted to make up whatever the disc does not supply. They differ in the inner few kiloparsecs, by 27 kilometres a second here — which is more than the measurement error and less than the uncertainty in the disc's own contribution, since that depends on a mass-to-light ratio nobody measures directly. The maximum-disc assumption picks the largest disc consistent with the data, and it is a convention rather than a result.

Three mass models that fit the same curve

A rotation curve is one function of radius and it is fitted with three components, only one of which is known. The stellar disc's contribution scales with a mass-to-light ratio nobody measures, and whatever the disc does not supply the dark halo does — so a family of models reproduces the same curve exactly, and choosing among them is a convention rather than a measurement.

galaxies · Dark matter One velocity, two distances — 4.7 and 9.5 kiloparsecs. The radial velocity of gas along a line of sight at galactic longitude 30 degrees, against distance from the Sun, for a flat rotation curve. The velocity rises to a maximum at the tangent point — where the line of sight is tangent to a circle of radius R₀ sin l — and falls again beyond it, so every velocity below the maximum corresponds to two distances. A cloud observed at 84 kilometres a second is at either 4.7 or 9.5 kiloparsecs, and nothing about its velocity says which. The two possibilities differ by a factor in distance and by its square in luminosity and mass, so the ambiguity is not a refinement — it decides whether a star-forming region is an ordinary one nearby or a monster on the far side of the Galaxy.

One velocity and two distances

Inside the Sun's orbit a line of sight crosses each galactocentric radius twice, and the two crossings have identical radial velocities. So a cloud's velocity gives two candidate distances, near and far, differing by a factor — and nothing about the velocity says which, though the choice decides whether the object is ordinary or extraordinary.

galaxies · Galactic structure One curve the temperature fixes, and one line the polarisation adds. The plane of the optical depth to reionisation against the amplitude of the primordial fluctuations. The temperature power spectrum of the microwave background measures the product of the amplitude and the exponential of minus twice the optical depth, so it constrains a curve rather than a point: more electrons scattering the photons out is indistinguishable from fewer fluctuations to begin with, and the two trade along the drawn locus across a factor of 1.22 in amplitude. What breaks it is the polarisation at the largest angular scales, where rescattered photons regenerate a signal whose amplitude is proportional to the optical depth itself rather than to its exponential. That constraint is nearly vertical here, it comes from a handful of multipoles at the very largest scales, and it is the single hardest measurement the microwave background has demanded — because at those scales the Galaxy's own polarised emission is larger than the signal.

An amplitude and a depth that arrive multiplied

The microwave background's temperature fluctuations are the primordial ones damped by everything that scattered them since. The damping is uniform, so a smaller starting amplitude and more scattering produce identical maps — and separating them requires a signal from a handful of the largest angular scales, where the Galaxy's own emission is larger than what is being measured.

cosmology · Reionisation Take 8 per cent off the horizon and the tension is gone. The Hubble constant against the sound horizon at recombination, along the locus the microwave background's measured angular scale fixes. What is measured is an angle — the angular size of the horizon, to a part in three thousand — and an angle is a length divided by a distance, so extracting an expansion rate requires the length. That length is computed from the physics of the first four hundred thousand years: the baryon density, the radiation density, the number of relativistic species and the recombination history. Change any of those and the locus is unchanged while the point on it moves. The horizontal band is the late-universe measurement from the distance ladder, and it meets the locus at 136 megaparsecs — 8 per cent shorter than the standard model gives. That is the arithmetic behind every proposal to resolve the disagreement by changing the early universe rather than the late one.

A constant that is an angle divided by a length

The microwave background does not measure an expansion rate. It measures one angle — the apparent size of the sound horizon at recombination — to a part in three thousand, and converting that angle into a rate requires the horizon's physical length, which is computed from a model of the first four hundred thousand years rather than observed.

cosmology · Hubble constant A light curve pulled out of shape by the Earth's own orbit. Magnification against time for a 90-day event at impact parameter 0.3, computed with the observer's orbital motion included at three values of the microlens parallax. The dashed curve is π_E = 0 and is exactly symmetric in time, because a straight-line track past a point lens has to be. The others are not. The Earth's displacement over the months the event lasts adds a term π_E times its projected orbital motion to the lens–source trajectory, so one wing is pushed closer to the lens and the other further away, and the curve acquires an asymmetry of 16 per cent at π_E = 0.15 and 34 per cent at π_E = 0.35. That asymmetry is the whole measurement. An ordinary event gives one dimensioned number, t_E, which mixes the lens mass with two distances and a proper motion and therefore weighs nothing; the parallax gives a second, and two constraints on the same lens are what a mass requires. It is only available on long events — the Earth has to move appreciably while the magnification is changing — which is why parallaxes are measured for the timescales above about fifty days and not for the short ones that a low-mass lens produces.

An asymmetry that the Earth's own orbit puts in

A microlensing event delivers one number with dimensions, and one is not enough to weigh anything. The Earth's motion over a long event distorts the light curve, and the distortion is the second constraint — after which the mass follows with no distance in it at all.

exoplanets · Microlensing Two signals that peak at different separations. The astrometric centroid shift and the photometric magnification against the source–lens separation in Einstein radii, on a common horizontal axis and their own vertical ones, for θ_E = 1 milliarcseconds. The shift is u/(u²+2) times θ_E: it vanishes at u = 0, because the two images are then symmetric about the lens and their centroid is the lens itself; it vanishes as u grows, because the minor image fades and the major one approaches the source; and it is largest in between, at u = √2 exactly, where it is θ_E/2√2 = 0.3536 mas. The magnification at that separation is only 1.15, which is a nineteen per cent brightening — a signal a survey would barely flag. The two observables are therefore complementary rather than redundant. The photometric event is short, bright and centred on the closest approach; the astrometric one is broad, largest on the wings, and lasts several times longer, falling only as 1/u once the source is well away. That slow decline is why astrometric microlensing needs years of monitoring and why it was a prediction for sixty years before it was a measurement.

A centroid that moves when the brightness does not

The two images a lens makes are never resolved, but their centre of light is displaced from where the source would be — by an amount that is largest at a separation where the magnification is only 1.34, long after the photometric event is over.

exoplanets · Microlensing Two separations that draw the same caustic. The width of the central caustic against the separation, computed from the lens equation for a mass ratio of 0.003, for each separation s and for its reciprocal 1/s. The two curves lie nearly on top of each other. That is the close–wide degeneracy, and it is a theorem rather than a coincidence: expanding the binary lens equation near the primary shows that the central caustic depends on the separation only through s + 1/s to first order in the mass ratio, and that combination is invariant under s → 1/s. It is first order and not exact, which the figure shows rather than hides — the two agree to 0.7 per cent at s = 2.8 and only to 13.1 at s = 1.4, because a smaller separation is closer to the resonant regime where the central and planetary caustics have not yet separated. Reducing the mass ratio to 1.0e-3 brings the worst case to 4.8 per cent, which is the first-order statement being checked rather than quoted. What that means for a measurement is uncomfortable. An event whose planetary signal comes from the source passing near the central caustic — which is most of them, because the central caustic sits where the magnification is already high and the event is already being watched — cannot distinguish a companion at 2.8 Einstein radii from one at 0.357. For a typical lens that is the difference between a planet at four astronomical units and one at less than one. And the disagreement the figure measures is not the way out: at 2.8 Einstein radii the caustics differ in width by 0.7 per cent, which is far below what a light curve sampled through a night's seeing can separate, so the ambiguity is real in the data even where it is not exact in the mathematics.

Two systems that draw the same curve

A binary lens with separation s and one with separation 1/s have central caustics that agree to first order in the mass ratio. The same event is therefore a planet at four astronomical units or one at less than one, and no amount of photometric precision decides between them.

exoplanets · Microlensing 5 perturbers that draw one 58-day timing signal. Every perturbing planet that gives a 3-day transiting planet the same timing signal — a sinusoid with a 57.8-day super-period and an amplitude of 1.27 minutes — placed wide of the nearest first-order commensurabilities inside and outside its orbit, with its mass found by integrating until the amplitude matched. outside, near 4:3 at 4.070 days needs 7.6 Earth masses and would move the star by K = 3.1 m/s; outside, near 3:2 at 4.620 days needs 12.0 Earth masses and would move the star by K = 4.8 m/s; outside, near 2:1 at 6.329 days needs 25.6 Earth masses and would move the star by K = 9.2 m/s; inside, near 3:2 at 1.966 days needs 6.9 Earth masses and would move the star by K = 3.7 m/s; inside, near 2:1 at 1.462 days needs 45.8 Earth masses and would move the star by K = 26.7 m/s. The period ratio is along the bottom on a logarithmic axis and the required mass up the side. A super-period fixes the distance from some resonance and not which resonance it is, and the amplitude then fixes a mass for each guess — so the timing alone returns a list rather than a planet. The velocity semi-amplitudes differ by a factor of 8.5 across the list, which is one of the two ways the list is shortened.

One timing curve and five planets that could draw it

A transiting planet whose times wander at a 58-day period, by just over a minute, is being pulled by something — but the period says only how far from some resonance the pull comes, not from which. Perturbers inside and outside the orbit, near four different commensurabilities, each with its own mass, reproduce the same curve to a fraction of a per cent. Timing alone returns a list, and even the detail that shortens it hides a coincidence of its own.

exoplanets · Transit-timing The ceiling a measured response has to be read against. The fluid Love number of a layered body — the value it would have if its outer shell offered no resistance whatever — against the radius of its core, for cores 1×, 1.6×, 2.4×, 3.6× the density of the material outside. Every curve starts at 3/2, because a core of no size is a uniform body, and falls as the core grows: central condensation stiffens a fluid body without giving it any strength, since the tidal forcing is strongest out where there is then very little mass to move. A body 0.6 of the way core at 3.6× density has a fluid ceiling of 0.787. A measurement above the relevant curve is impossible for any interior of that layering; a measurement below it says only that something is resisting, and does not say what.

An ocean is detected and its depth is not

A tidal response thirty-six times too large for any solid body proves a moon has a liquid layer under its crust. It does not say how deep the liquid is, how thick the crust above it is, or what the core beneath it is made of — because the same one number is produced by a whole surface of interiors.

gravitation · Love numbers A mass measured by the structure it prevents. The fractional suppression of the small-scale matter power spectrum against the sum of the neutrino masses. The relic density follows from the thermal history with no astrophysics in it — the neutrinos’ share of the critical density, times h², is the mass sum divided by 93.14 eV exactly — and the suppression is about eight times the neutrinos' share of the matter, because a particle moving at a large fraction of the speed of light streams out of an overdensity while it is still growing and takes its own gravity with it. The two mass orderings put a floor under the sum at 58 meV and 100 meV; the cosmological upper bound is near 0.12 eV, which is 7.2 per cent of suppression. The floor and the ceiling are within a factor of two of each other, so this is a measurement about to happen or a model about to break, and the quantity it returns is a sum rather than any individual mass.

A mass measured by what it stopped from forming

Neutrinos were relativistic in the early universe and are not now, so they are the one entry in the cosmic budget that changes category. What cosmology measures is not their density but the hole they leave — they stream out of a growing clump and take their gravity with them, and the missing structure bounds a particle mass more tightly than any laboratory has.

cosmology · Density parameters A carbon-to-oxygen ratio that steps at every front. The carbon-to-oxygen ratio of the gas and of the solids against distance from a 1 solar-mass star, each in units of the star's own ratio. Crossing a condensation front moves one element or both out of the gas and into the solids, so the two curves step in opposite directions at water at 2.7 AU, carbon dioxide at 16.0 AU, carbon monoxide at 196.0 AU. Water takes oxygen and no carbon, so beyond it the gas is carbon-rich — 3.20 times the stellar ratio — and the solids are oxygen-rich. Carbon monoxide takes both, in a ratio of one to one, so beyond that front the gas ratio rises again. A giant planet's atmosphere is made mostly of gas it accreted, so measuring its ratio and inverting this staircase gives a formation radius — and the inversion is not unique, because more than one interval returns the same value once the solids a planet also swallowed are allowed for.

Two elements in a ratio, and a birthplace read off it

Carbon and oxygen freeze out at different places, so the gas between the fronts is carbon-rich and the solids are oxygen-rich. A giant planet is made mostly of gas it accreted, so measuring the ratio in its atmosphere and inverting the staircase should give the radius it formed at — and the inversion turns out not to be unique.

exoplanets · The snow line Three shifts larger than the error bar, and two that cancel. The blackbody B − V index against temperature, with three systematic shifts marked at 5,772 K. All three are computed from the same Planck integrals the relation itself is: a 3,800 K companion contributing 25 per cent of the V light reddens the index by 0.093 magnitudes, because the companion is relatively brighter in the redder band; 0.35 magnitudes of visual extinction at a total-to-selective ratio of 3.1 adds 0.113 directly, since the colour excess is the extinction divided by that ratio; and a metallicity of -1 dex subtracts 0.200, because the metal lines that eat the B band are the ones a metal-poor star is short of. Read as temperatures, the same star comes back at 5331 K, 5243 K and 7021 K against a true 5,772. Two of the three have opposite signs, and that is the difficulty rather than the relief. All three together shift the index by 0.005 magnitudes against 0.405 of combined magnitude — very nearly nothing, because the opposing pair removes almost all of it — and return 5744 K, which is 28 K from the truth by cancellation and not by accuracy. A reddened metal-poor star and an unreddened solar-metallicity one are the same point on this curve, and no amount of photometry in two bands separates them. What does separate them is a third band, or a spectrum — which is where the cheapest measurement in astronomy stops being cheap.

Three shifts larger than the error bar, and two that cancel

An unresolved companion, a reddening and a metallicity each move a colour index by more than any modern photometer's precision. Two of them move it in opposite directions, so the three together can return the right temperature by cancellation rather than by accuracy.

starlight · Stellar colour A wall measures a ratio, and a ratio is a line. The tidal quality factor against the system's age, with each line the locus of one measured circularisation boundary. For a planet the eccentricity damping time τₑ goes as Q′P^(13/3), so the cut-off period goes as (age/Q′)^(3/13) and only the ratio of the two appears. A measured wall is therefore a straight line of slope exactly 1 in this plane and never a point on it: a 5-day boundary is consistent with Q′ = 2·10⁵ in a one-billion-year-old system and with Q′ = 2·10⁶ in a ten-billion-year-old one, and nothing in the light curve chooses. The stellar version of this measurement escapes because the cluster supplies the age, from a main-sequence turn-off that owes the tide nothing — which is why a cut-off period read off four clusters is a dissipation measurement and the same wall in the hot-Jupiter plane is not. The shaded band is what a field star's age is actually worth: known to a factor of 3, it leaves Q′ known to a factor of 3 and no better, against a quantity whose published values for giant planets span 10⁴ to 10⁹. What would break the degeneracy is a second measurement with a different power of P in it — an orbital decay rate, which goes as Q′⁻¹ with no age in it at all, and which has now been measured for one planet.

A wall measures a ratio, and a ratio is a line

The same circularisation boundary drawn for planets probes the dissipation inside the planet rather than inside the star. But the boundary depends only on age over Q′, so with no cluster to date the system the measurement is a line in a plane and never a point on it.

orbits · Circularisation 1020 clusters or 372, and the survey cannot say which parameter moved. The number of clusters per unit redshift a survey finds above an integrated Compton signal of 8·10⁻⁵ arcmin² over 6 per cent of the sky, computed from the Sheth–Tormen halo count grown by the linear growth factor, the comoving volume in each redshift slice, and the calibrated relation between signal and mass. Each curve is one pair of assumptions: the amplitude of structure, σ₈, and the hydrostatic mass bias, 1 − b, which says how far the X-ray masses the relation was calibrated on fall below the true masses. With σ₈ = 0.811 and 1 − b = 0.8 the survey finds 1020; σ₈ = 0.811 with 1 − b = 0.6 gives 372; σ₈ = 0.75 with 1 − b = 0.8 gives 548. The counts fall at low redshift because there is little volume, and at high redshift because massive halos have not yet formed, and the peak sits near z = 0.24. Lowering 1 − b pushes the threshold onto more massive and rarer halos; lowering σ₈ makes every halo rarer. The two lower curves differ in total by 47 per cent and in normalised shape by at most 2 per cent of the peak. A survey that assumed 1 − b = 0.8 would read the 372 clusters of the curve with 1 − b = 0.6 as σ₈ = 0.716, with a redshift distribution that differs from it by at most 12 per cent of the peak — which is the only handle the survey has on the difference, and it is smaller than the counting noise in any redshift bin holding fewer than about 67 clusters. A total count cannot distinguish a universe with less structure from a survey that has misjudged its masses, and it is that degeneracy, not the counting, that has been argued about since the first large catalogue.

Too few clusters, or a scale that reads light

A catalogue selected on the microwave shadow is, past redshift one half, very nearly a catalogue of everything above a fixed mass — so its count by redshift is the growth of structure read almost directly. Almost, because the mass behind the threshold comes from a calibration, and a scale that reads twenty per cent light is indistinguishable from a universe with less in it.

cosmology · Sunyaev zeldovich

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Mass ratioMicrolensingAngular einstein radiusCausticEinstein radiusImpact parameterLens equationLight curveProper motionStructure growthAngular-diameter distanceAstrometry

All concepts