Generator

The tension-plot generator

H₀: nine determinations in two families

Published determinations of H₀, each with its quoted one-sigma interval, sorted into two families — measured locally, in the late universe, against inferred from z ≈ 1100 through a model. The shaded band behind each family is that family's inverse-variance weighted mean: 72.66 ± 0.75 across 5 of them, against 67.40 ± 0.41 across 4. The difference is 5.26 ± 0.85 km/s/Mpc, which is 6.2 standard deviations, computed here from the quoted errors alone. That number is an upper bound on the significance rather than the significance: the determinations within each family share calibrations, samples and in two cases the same supernovae, so they are not independent, and a correlated pair combines to something wider than the formula used here gives. What the figure does establish is that the split is not one discrepant measurement against a consensus — it is two internally consistent groups, and the grouping is by method rather than by result.

11 essays call tension-plot. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Every figure listed here is the same construction drawn at different numbers, so a correction to one is a correction to all of them.

G: 14 determinations in two families. Published determinations of G, each with its quoted one-sigma interval, sorted into two families — torsion balance, in one form or another, against beam balance, pendulum, atom interferometry. The shaded band behind each family is that family's inverse-variance weighted mean: 6.67435 ± 0.00004 across 11 of them, against 6.67343 ± 0.00009 across 3. The difference is 0.00092 ± 0.00010 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻², which is 9.3 standard deviations, computed here from the quoted errors alone. The arithmetic is the same one the Hubble figure uses and here it should be distrusted, because the scatter inside each family already exceeds what the intervals allow: eleven torsion-balance determinations spread over 500 parts per million with quoted intervals of 12 to 130 cannot all be right, whatever the difference between the families comes to. That is why the recommended value's uncertainty is expanded far beyond any single experiment's rather than being the weighted combination drawn here — the disagreement is between laboratories using the same method, not between methods.

Nothing in the sky is weighed in kilograms

The Sun's gravitational parameter is known to eleven significant figures. The Sun's mass is known to five. The two statements are about the same object and the difference between them is a constant measured in basements, which is the worst-determined fundamental constant in physics.

$GW150914: 33 Hz to 250 Hz in 0.22 seconds. The strain of GW150914 — two black holes — through the last 0.22 seconds before merger, computed from the quadrupole sweep at the chirp mass its fit returned, 28.716 solar masses, and drawn at the luminosity distance it returned, 440 megaparsecs. Two things rise together and neither is free to rise on its own: the frequency goes from 33 Hz to 250 Hz, and the envelope — the outer curve — grows by a factor of 3.9, because the amplitude goes as f^2/3 and nothing else in it changes over so short a span. The vertical axis is in units of 10⁻²¹, so the peak here is a fractional length change of about 2.9·10⁻²¹: over the four kilometres of an interferometer arm that is 1.2·10⁻¹⁷ metres, a thousandth of the width of a proton. The chirp mass is not fitted to the amplitude at all — it comes from the spacing of these zero crossings, which is why it is the best-determined number in the whole event and why the distance, which does come from the amplitude, is the worst.$ Gravitation

A distance with no ladder under it

The frequency sweep of an inspiral fixes the chirp mass with no distance in it, and the amplitude then gives the luminosity distance directly, because one expression fixes both. That is a distance measured with nothing calibrated beneath it — and its error budget is one angle.

A delay of 81 days, and a sheet nobody can see that moves H₀ to 82.4. Above: the arrival-time surface of a lensed source, along the line through the lens. The curve is the Fermat potential in days — the geometric cost of taking a longer path, minus the gravitational cost of climbing out of the potential — and the images sit at its stationary points, at -1.20″ and 2.04″, which for an isothermal sphere is β ± θ_E. Fermat's principle is doing all of the work here: light does not take the shortest path or the quickest one, it takes every stationary one, and the number of images is the number of stationary points. The vertical distance between the two is 81 days, and it is measurable — the source is a quasar, quasars vary, and the same wiggle appears in one image and then the other. That single number carries an absolute distance: the delay is D_Δt/c times a dimensionless function of the lens model, and D_Δt goes as 1/H₀, so a monitoring campaign gives the Hubble constant with no calibrated distance beneath it. Below: the two light curves, shifted by exactly that delay. The dashed curve is the second image with the delay removed, and the agreement is the measurement. What the picture also shows is the reason the answer keeps moving. The second arrival-time curve is the same lens with a uniform sheet of convergence added and the source moved to compensate: every image sits at the same place, every flux ratio is the same, every image shape is the same, and the delay is λ = 0.85 times as long. A lens model fitted to positions alone cannot see the sheet, and inferring H₀ from the same delay under it gives 82.4 instead of 70 — a 15 per cent shift with no observable attached. Breaking it needs a mass measured some other way: the velocity dispersion of the deflector, or a count of everything else along the line of sight.

A distance measured with a stopwatch

The images of a lensed quasar sit at the stationary points of an arrival-time surface, and the height between two of them is a delay in days. That delay is proportional to a distance, and the distance is proportional to one over the Hubble constant — so a flickering quasar gives H₀ with no calibrated distance under it.

The same constant, measured twice, five sigma apart

Cepheids and supernovae give an expansion rate of about 73 kilometres per second per megaparsec. The microwave background gives 67.4. Both quote errors near one per cent, both have been rebuilt from scratch by rival teams, and the gap between them has grown as the measurements have improved.

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.

$A band and a strip, and the constant where they cross. The plane of the two quantities a planetary ephemeris cannot separate: the fractional rate of change of the gravitational constant, vertically, and of the Sun's mass, horizontally, both in units of 10⁻¹⁴ per year. The orbits respond only to their sum, the rate of change of GM☉, so a measurement of that sum — drawn here as −9.0 ± 3.0 × 10⁻¹⁴ per year, the precision recent ephemerides reach, not any one published value — is a diagonal band. On its own it allows any Ġ/G at all, provided the Sun's mass is changing to compensate. The vertical strip is the Sun's mass loss computed from its luminosity and its wind, −9.9 to −8.8 × 10⁻¹⁴ per year. Where the two overlap, Ġ/G lies between −3.2 and 3.9 × 10⁻¹⁴ per year. The bound on a change in a fundamental constant is therefore set as much by how well the solar wind is measured as by how well the planets are.$ Gravitation

A constant measured through a Sun that is getting lighter

Whether the gravitational constant changes with time is tested by watching the planets, and the planets report only the product of G with the Sun's mass. The Sun is losing mass — four million tonnes a second as light, a million and a half more as wind — at nearly a ten-trillionth of itself a year, and every bound on a changing G is a statement about the solar wind as much as about gravity.

An edge that needs no pulsation

The local measurement of the expansion rate rests on a calibration step, and for decades that step was the Cepheid variables. The tip of the red giant branch replaces it with an edge — the brightness at which old stars ignite helium, nearly the same in every galaxy — found by counting stars rather than modelling them. It gives a slightly lower expansion rate, and whether the difference is a flaw in one calibration or in both is the local half of the Hubble tension.

How deep a hole the Hubble tension needs, and how deep holes are. The typical departure of the matter density from the mean, averaged over a sphere — one standard deviation, σ, from the linear power spectrum with σ₈ = 0.81 — against the sphere's radius, both on logarithmic axes. It falls from 0.55 at 20 Mpc to 0.022 at 300 Mpc. A local expansion rate 8.3 per cent above the global one, the size of the Hubble tension, needs the sphere the supernovae sample to be underdense by 0.47 (dashed), with a growth rate of 0.53. Across the radii the supernovae span (shaded, 100–600 Mpc) that is 4 to 67 standard deviations.

A hole too deep for the sky to have made

If the Milky Way sat inside a vast underdense region, everything around it would be expanding faster than the universe as a whole, and the locally measured Hubble constant would come out high — which is what Cepheids and supernovae find. The idea needs no new physics. It needs a void about half empty across the six hundred megaparsecs the supernovae sample, and the same cosmology that predicts the microwave background prices such a void at dozens of standard deviations.

Oceans that a changing G would have boiled. The Earth's surface temperature in a crude climate — equilibrium temperature for a fixed albedo, scaled as the received flux to the quarter power, plus a fixed greenhouse warming of 33 K — against time before the present, if the Sun's luminosity goes as G⁷ and the Earth's orbit as 1/G, so the flux goes as G⁹, on top of the Sun's own brightening. With Dirac's G ∝ 1/t and an age of 13.8 Gyr, the oceans boil 1.9 Gyr ago; with G falling by 10⁻¹¹ of itself a year, the surface is 292 K at 3.8 Gyr. Rocks of that age were laid down in water. Constant G gives the faint young Sun's cooling, 270 K in this climate — a separate problem, which the real atmosphere solved.

A constant bounded by the oceans

In 1937 Dirac proposed that the gravitational constant falls as the universe ages. Eleven years later Teller pointed out what that would have done to the Earth: a star's luminosity depends on G to about the seventh power, the Earth's orbit shrinks as G grows, and the sunlight reaching the Earth goes as the ninth power. Run backwards, Dirac's G boils the oceans less than two billion years ago. The rocks were laid down in water, so G cannot have changed that fast — the first bound on a changing constant came from geology.

The flow round the Local Group, shell by shell. Radial velocity against distance from the Local Group's centre today, for spherical shells of matter in a standard expanding background with the cosmological constant, round a group whose mass inside the zero-velocity surface is 1×10¹² M☉, 2×10¹² M☉, 4×10¹² M☉. Inside the zero-velocity radius — 0.79 Mpc, 1.00 Mpc, 1.26 Mpc — the shells are falling in; outside it they recede, slowly at first and then at the Hubble rate (dashed, 67.7 km/s per Mpc). At 1.5 Mpc the three groups give 75, 57, 30 km/s against 102 for an undisturbed flow; by 5 Mpc the curves differ by 10 km/s and have nearly rejoined the line. The group's pull is written into the first two or three megaparsecs of the flow, and only there.

A flow too quiet for the lumps it runs between

The galaxies within ten megaparsecs of the Milky Way recede almost exactly as the Hubble law says, scattering about it by a few tens of kilometres a second. The matter they move through is lumpy at the factor-of-several level, and elsewhere galaxies move relative to their neighbours at three hundred. The quiet is a measurement, it limits what the group's own pull can be read from, and it says something about the place rather than about the law.

A valley of limits, and how much of it each experiment holds. The strength α a Yukawa term could have, against its range, with both axes logarithmic and everything above the curve excluded at about 95% confidence. The curve is a rounded envelope of published limits: laboratory torsion balances below a metre, tower and mine gravimetry to a few kilometres, the orbits of geodetic satellites near 10⁷ metres, lunar laser ranging near 4×10⁸ metres at a few parts in 10¹¹, and planetary ranging beyond. It does not rule out a term at ranges under about ten micrometres or above about 10¹³ metres; the limits are weakest where no pair of masses of the right size can be arranged.

A force that can hide at any one distance

The inverse-square law is tested by comparing the strength of gravity at two distances, and every instrument that does so is sensitive over about one decade of range. A Yukawa force with a range outside that decade is invisible to it: much shorter and it never reaches, much longer and it only rescales the constant. So testing the law is not one experiment made more precise but a chain of unrelated ones, from torsion pendulums to the orbits of planets, and the chain has weak links exactly where no pair of masses of the right size can be arranged.

The whole library · All essays