Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Equation of state — where it appears

The ratio of a component's pressure to its energy density, which decides how fast it dilutes as the universe expands. Matter has a ratio of zero and radiation one third, so radiation dilutes faster; a value below minus one third is what an accelerating expansion requires.

Named by 13 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

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 measured mass of 2.08 deletes an equation of state. Mass against radius for three neutron-star equations of state, each a polytrope P = Kρ² integrated through the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff equation from the centre outwards until the pressure reaches zero. Every sequence rises, turns over and falls; only the rising part is stable, because past the maximum adding mass makes the star smaller and the smaller star cannot hold itself up. The maxima here are 1.60, 2.10, 2.57 solar masses, in the order of increasing stiffness — the same nuclear matter with a slightly harder response to compression supports a heavier star, and nothing else in the calculation changes. The horizontal band is PSR J0740+6620, whose mass of 2.08 ± 0.07 solar masses comes from the Shapiro delay of its own pulses passing its companion, which is a timing measurement and involves no model of the star at all. It sits above the maximum of one of the three, and those are not disfavoured but excluded: an equation of state that cannot hold up two solar masses is wrong, whatever else recommends it. The two lines at the left are exact and no star may cross them — the Schwarzschild radius, and the bound above it inside which the speed of sound in the matter would exceed the speed of light. A caution about the curves themselves: a Γ = 2 polytrope is a stand-in for nuclear matter and runs a kilometre or two large in radius at fixed mass, so read the ordering and the maxima rather than the radii.

A radius that decides what matter can be

Nobody can make matter at four times the density of an atomic nucleus, and no calculation settles what it does there. What can be done is to weigh a neutron star — every candidate description of that matter predicts a heaviest star it could hold up, and a single measured mass above that value deletes the description permanently.

stars · Degeneracy Distance modulus against redshift, for three universes. The distance modulus μ = 5 log₁₀(D_L/10 pc) against redshift for three universes, all with H₀ = 67.36 km/s/Mpc, with 60 model supernovae drawn from the ΛCDM curve with 0.15 magnitudes of scatter. The point of the figure is how little difference there is: across two decades of redshift the three curves stay within a few tenths of a magnitude, and at z = 0.5 the accelerating and decelerating cases differ by 0.387 mag. A cosmology is not read off this plot. It is read off the residual, which is the next figure.

An expansion that was supposed to be slowing

Gravity is attractive, so an expanding universe full of matter must be decelerating, and the only question was by how much. Two teams set out to measure the deceleration and both found a quarter of a magnitude of extra faintness at redshift half — which is the wrong sign.

cosmology · Dark energy The same universe, four times, as a fraction of itself. Each bar is the fractional contribution of the four components to the total density at one epoch, computed from the Planck 2018 parameters by scaling each component from today: radiation as (1+z)⁴, both kinds of matter as (1+z)³, and Λ as a constant. The familiar figure — five per cent baryons, twenty-six dark matter, sixty-nine dark energy — is the top bar and only the top bar. At recombination the same universe is three-quarters dark matter and Λ is one part in ten million; before matter–radiation equality it is mostly radiation. A pie chart of the contents of the universe is therefore a statement about a moment, and the moment is the one it happens to be drawn in.

A budget whose familiar part is five per cent

Five per cent ordinary matter, twenty-six per cent dark matter, sixty-nine per cent dark energy. The figures are quoted everywhere and each one comes from a different measurement, the denominator they are fractions of is itself built out of the expansion rate, and the whole chart is a statement about one instant that was a different chart at every earlier time.

cosmology · Density parameters w = −0.9 is 34 millimagnitudes, and one supernova scatters by 120. Above: how much the distance modulus moves when the dark energy is not a constant. Each curve is a universe with the same Ωₘ = 0.315 and a different equation of state w, drawn as a difference from w = −1 in magnitudes. At redshift a half, w = −0.9 is worth 34 millimagnitudes — the shaded band is the 0.12-magnitude intrinsic scatter of a single standardised type Ia supernova, and the signal is a fifth of it. Nothing about one object can see this; the measurement is the mean of 1500, whose error on the mean is 3.1 millimagnitudes, and even that only works because the shape of the curve in redshift is different from every systematic anybody has thought of. Below: why the supernovae are not enough on their own. Each locus is the set of (Ωₘ, w) that a measurement cannot tell apart from the fiducial model — computed, not sketched: the supernova curve is the ridge of the same sum of squares a fit would minimise over 0.02–1 in redshift, and the acoustic-scale curve is the exact set of models with the same comoving distance to last scattering, which is what fixes the angle the microwave background's first peak subtends. They cross at 36 degrees. Neither is a measurement of w and the pair is, which is why the constraint on the equation of state is a picture of two loci crossing rather than a number read off a curve — and why −1.03 ± 0.03 is a statement about how well they cross rather than about how well anything was measured.

The number that would say whether it is a constant

Whether dark energy is a cosmological constant is the question of whether w is exactly −1, and w = −0.9 changes a distance modulus by thirty-four millimagnitudes at redshift a half — a fifth of the scatter of a single supernova, along a degeneracy only the acoustic scale can cut across.

cosmology · Dark energy Lane–Emden solutions for n = 0, 1, 1.5, 3, 4.5, 5, and the one that has no surface. The dimensionless density θ against the dimensionless radius ξ, for polytropic indices 0, 1, 1.5, 3, 4.5, 5. Each curve is the whole structure of a star whose pressure is K times its density to the power 1 + 1/n: the equation of state and hydrostatic equilibrium leave one second-order differential equation, and this is its solution. Every curve starts at θ = 1 with zero slope, because the density is greatest at the centre and has no cusp there. What separates them is where they end. At n = 0 the density is uniform and the surface is at ξ₁ = 2.4495; by n = 3 it has moved out to 6.8968 and the central density is 54.2 times the mean. At n = 5 the curve reaches zero only at infinity — a configuration of infinite radius and, remarkably, finite mass — and every index above it has neither. The three curves that have closed forms, n = 0, 1 and 5, are drawn from the same numerical integration as the rest and agree with those forms to better than two parts in a million, which is what licenses reading the others off the picture. What the figure cannot show is the scale: ξ is radius divided by a length that depends on the central density and on K, so two stars of the same index and wildly different sizes have the same curve here.

An equation of state is already a star

Write down how a gas's pressure depends on its density, insist that the pressure hold the weight up, and everything else follows — the run of density, the fraction of the mass inside each radius, and, at one particular index, a mass that does not care what the radius is.

stars · Polytropes Central pressure bracketed without a model: 6 bodies, 23 decades apart. What can be said about the middle of a body from its mass and its radius alone. The lower end of each bar is GM²/8πR⁴, which follows from hydrostatic equilibrium and nothing else — no equation of state, no composition, no temperature, no assumption whatever about how the density is arranged inside. The upper end costs one more assumption, that the density does not increase outward, and it needs a central density, which is a model output rather than an observation and is why that edge is drawn as the softer one. The dot is what a full structural model gives. For the first five bodies every dot lies inside its bar, and what is worth noticing is how wide the bar is: Sun's rigorous floor is 4.48e+13 pascals against a modelled 2.34e+16, a factor of 522. The bound is true and nearly useless there, because most of a centrally condensed body's pressure comes from the concentration and the derivation deliberately knows nothing about it. The relativistic entry is the exception, and the reason to draw the figure at all. neutron star's modelled central pressure is 8.5 times the Newtonian ceiling — a body no Newtonian arrangement of matter with density falling outward can produce. The floor still holds, and holds for a statable reason: relativity makes the pressure gradient steeper than Newtonian gravity does, so the true central pressure can only exceed what the Newtonian derivation demands. The bracket therefore does more than constrain an interior. Applied at a small enough radius it breaks, and where it breaks is where Newtonian hydrostatics has stopped being the right equation.

A floor under the centre that assumes nothing

There is a lower bound on the pressure at the centre of any body in hydrostatic equilibrium, and it needs no equation of state, no composition and no temperature — only a mass and a radius. For the Sun it is nearly useless. For a neutron star it says which theory of gravity the interior needs.

stars · Hydrostatic equilibrium Where each gravity harmonic gets its signal: J₂ from the bulk, J₁₀ from the outer 12 per cent. Why a spacecraft that never enters a planet can say something about its depth. Each zonal harmonic of the external field is an integral over the interior density weighted by r to the power of the degree plus two, and the curves here are those integrals accumulated outward: the fraction of each coefficient that has been contributed by the time the integration reaches a given fractional radius, for an interior of polytropic index 1. The weighting climbs steeply with degree, so the curves separate. Half of J₂ comes from inside 73 per cent of the radius, and half of J₁₀ from inside 88 per cent — the higher coefficients barely know the deep interior exists. That ordering is the whole basis of gravity science as a probe. A single coefficient is one number and constrains almost nothing; a series of them, each weighted differently, is a coarse depth profile, and it is how Jupiter's core turned out to be smeared over half the planet rather than sitting as a distinct sphere at the middle. Two limits are worth stating with it. The information falls off fast: by degree ten the kernel is concentrated in a shell so thin that measuring the coefficient says little about anything below it. And every curve here assumes north–south symmetry, under which the odd harmonics vanish identically — so a measured J₃ or J₅ is not a deeper probe of the same thing but a measurement of something else entirely, which at a giant planet is how fast and how deep the winds run.

A core weighed by something that never went in

The external gravity field of a planet is a series, and each term of it is an integral over the interior density weighted by a different power of radius. Measure enough terms and the series becomes a coarse depth profile — which is how Jupiter's core turned out to be smeared over half the planet rather than sitting at the middle.

gravitation · Oblateness 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 Whether an event horizon exists at all, against one number. The comoving event horizon today — the distance a signal sent now will ever cover — against the equation of state of the dark energy, for a flat universe with the measured matter density. The curve runs away at w = −1/3 and does not exist above it: that is where the expansion stops accelerating, and in a universe that does not accelerate the integral ∫da/a²E diverges and every galaxy is eventually reachable, however far away. Below −1/3 the horizon is finite and shrinks as w falls, because a more negative equation of state makes the dark energy density grow with time rather than stay constant. At the cosmological constant's w = −1 the horizon is 16.7 billion light years against a particle horizon of 46.1, so 4.7 per cent of the volume now observable is still reachable. The band is the measured −1.03 ± 0.03. What the figure is for is the asymmetry in what the measurement still allows: two sigma toward zero puts the horizon at 17.5 Gly and two sigma the other way at 14.7, and the shape of the curve means that the closer the true value sits to −1/3 the more violently the answer moves. The reachable fraction is not a robust number in the way the particle horizon is.

Whether there is a horizon at all

An event horizon exists precisely when the expansion accelerates, and its size is not a smooth function of how much. The integral that defines it runs away as the equation of state approaches minus a third, so two sigma either way on a measured number are two very different futures.

cosmology · Horizons m²φ²: where the observed scales left, and where inflation ends. The m²φ² potential, drawn as a shape with its height divided out, against the field in reduced Planck masses. The field rolls downhill towards zero and inflation ends where the slow-roll parameter ε reaches one, at φ = 1.41. The shaded band is the stretch of field the scales now seen on the sky left the Hubble radius from: 60 e-folds before the end at φ = 15.56 and 50 before it at φ = 14.21. Nothing about the sky depends on the rest of the curve. Across that band the two numbers the tilt is made of are ε = 9.01e-3 and η = 0.0090, which give a spectral index of 0.9640 and a tensor-to-scalar ratio of 0.1441 at 55 e-folds. The height is not in either: it is fixed separately by the amplitude of the fluctuations, which puts the potential at (2.0 × 10¹⁶ GeV)⁴ there — and multiplying the whole curve by any constant leaves the band, the tilt and the ratio exactly where they are, because every slow-roll quantity is a ratio of the potential to its own derivatives. The field travels 13.49 Planck masses from the middle of the band to the end.

The tilt knows the slope and not the height

The measured spectral index, 0.965, is quoted as the strongest evidence for inflation, and it is a statement about two dimensionless numbers — how steeply the potential fell and how sharply that slope was changing, over the few e-folds the sky can see. The height of the potential is not in it at all, which is why potentials that look nothing alike reproduce it.

cosmology · Inflation Starobinsky: e-folds before the end, against how reheating went. N, the number of e-folds between the pivot scale leaving the Hubble radius and the end of inflation, for the Starobinsky potential, against the temperature at which reheating finished, for 3 equations of state during it. All the lines meet on the right at instant reheating, 2.6 × 10¹⁵ GeV, where N = 55.6. The left edge is 5 MeV, below which nucleosynthesis would not have happened. w = 0, oscillating field: 42.0 at 5 MeV; w = ⅓, like radiation: 55.6 at 5 MeV; w = 1, kination: 69.0 at 5 MeV. The reason is how far the universe stretches while the energy density falls: an oscillating field dilutes like matter, as a⁻³, so for the same fall in density it expands further than radiation would, more of the growth of today's scales happens after inflation, and fewer e-folds of inflation are needed to put them where they are. A stiff epoch with w = 1 dilutes as a⁻⁶, stretches less, and needs more. A radiation-like epoch changes nothing. None of this epoch has been observed; the lines are the arithmetic of energy and entropy, and the spread between them is how much an unobserved history moves a quantity the spectral index depends on.

The epoch nobody saw moves the tilt

Between the end of inflation and the hot universe that made the light elements lies an interval nothing has observed, in which the energy of the inflaton became radiation. How long that took changes how many e-folds before the end the observed scales left — by as many as fourteen — and that moves every model's predicted spectral index by more than the measurement's uncertainty. A potential is never tested by the tilt alone; a potential and a reheating history are tested together.

cosmology · Inflation Structure stops forming above about 14 times the observed Λ. The fraction of matter that ever collapses into a bound object, against the cosmological constant in units of the observed one, holding the primordial fluctuation amplitude fixed. Growth of structure stops once Λ dominates the expansion, so the linear growth factor approaches a finite limit rather than rising for ever, and a larger Λ freezes it earlier and smaller. The asymptotic growth factor at the observed Λ is 1.110; at a hundredth of it, 5.152; at a hundred times, 0.239. The collapsed fraction falls from 0.86 to 0.40 to 0.000 across the same range, and passes a tenth of its present value at 14 times the observed constant. The observed value sits a factor of 14 below the largest one that leaves anything at all — which is the whole of the anthropic argument, and that factor is what has to be compared against the 10¹²⁰ by which the naive theoretical estimate misses.

A coincidence that is a factor of fourteen

The cosmological constant is famously wrong by a hundred and twenty orders of magnitude, and famously coincidental in sitting near the matter density now. Computing how large it could be and still leave any structure at all turns the second complaint into a number — and the number is fourteen, not a hundred and twenty.

cosmology · Density parameters

Named alongside it

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

Cosmological constantPolytropeCoincidence problemDark energyDeceleration parameterDegeneracy pressureHydrostatic equilibriumCentral condensationChandrasekhar limitCritical densityDegeneracyE-folds

All concepts