Galaxies

Using twenty sectors of TESS observations and the hitherto unutilized radial velocities from the David Dunlap Observatory survey, we fully characterize the close binary TV UMi. Its nearly sinusoidal light curves are well explained by a low-inclination, shallowly-eclipsing model in marginal contact, with a dark spot whose longitudinal migration is strongly correlated with the eclipse time variations. We derive the orbital parameters of the binary and determine the masses and radii of the components with a precision of a few percent. The estimated age and the position of TV UMi on the theoretical HR diagram indicate it’s a relatively young late-type contact binary of the W subtype.

What does “Big Bang” mean? What was the actual origin of these two words? There are many aspects hidden under this name, which are seldom explained. They are discussed here. To frame the analysis, help will be sought from the highly authoritative voices of two exceptional writers: William Shakespeare and Umberto Eco. Both have explored the tension existing between words and the realities they name. And this includes names given to outstanding theorems and spectacular discoveries, too. Stigler’s law of eponymy is recalled in this context. These points will be at the heart of the quest here, concerning the concept of “Big Bang”, which only a few people know what it means, actually. Fred Hoyle was the first to pronounce these words, in a BBC radio program, with a meaning that was later called inflation. But listeners were left with the image he was trying to destroy: the explosion of Lemaître’s primeval atom (an absolutely wrong concept). Hoyle’s Steady State will be carefully compared with inflation cosmology. They are quite different, and yet, in both cases, the possibility of creating matter/energy out of expanding space is rooted in the same fundamental principles: those of General Relativity. As is also, the possibility of having a universe with zero total energy, anticipated by R.C. Tolman, in 1934 already. It will be shown, how to obtain accelerated expansion from negative pressure; how to reconcile energy conservation with matter creation in an expanding universe; and a curious relation between de Sitter spacetime and Steady State cosmology. Concerning the naming issue, it will be remarked that, today, the same label “Big Bang” is used in very different contexts: (a) the Big Bang Singularity; (b) as the equivalent of cosmic inflation; (c) speaking of the Big Bang cosmological model; (d) to name a very popular TV program; and more.

Objective: We examine whether a finite-range scalar–tensor modification of gravity can be simultaneously compatible with cosmological background data, galaxy rotation curves, and local/astrophysical consistency tests, while satisfying the luminal gravitational-wave propagation constraint ($c_T=1$) implied by GW170817 at low redshifts. Methods: We formulate the model at the level of an explicit covariant action and derive the corresponding field equations; for cosmological inferences, we adopt an effective background closure in which the late-time dark-energy density is modulated by a smooth activation function characterized by a length scale $\lambda$ and amplitude $ϵ$. We constrain this background model using Pantheon+, DESI Gaussian Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAOs), and a Planck acoustic-scale prior, including an explicit $\Lambda$CDM comparison. We then propagate the inferred characteristic length by fixing $\lambda$ in the weak-field Yukawa kernel used to model 175 SPARC galaxy rotation curves with standard baryonic components and a controlled spherical approximation for the scalar response. Results: The joint background fit yields , $\mathrm{Mpc}$, and . With $\lambda$ fixed, the baryons + scalar model describes the SPARC sample with a median reduced chi-square of ${\chi }_{\nu }^2=1.07$; for a 14-galaxy subset, this model is moderately preferred over the standard baryons + NFW halo description in the finite-sample information criteria, with a mean $\Delta$AICc outcome in favor of the baryons + scalar model (≈2.8). A Vainshtein-type screening completion with eV satisfies Cassini, Lunar Laser Ranging, and binary pulsar bounds while keeping the kpc scales effectively unscreened. For linear growth observables, we adopt a conservative General Relativity-like baseline (${\mu }_0=0$) and show that current $f{\sigma }_8$ data are consistent with ${\mu }_0\simeq 0$ for our best-fit background; the model predicts $S_8=0.791$, consistent with representative cosmic-shear constraints. Conclusions: Within the present scope (action-level weak-field dynamics for galaxy modeling plus an explicitly stated effective closure for background inference), the results support a mutually compatible characteristic length at the Mpc scale; however, a full perturbation-level implementation of the covariant theory remains an issue for future work, and the role of cold dark matter beyond galaxy scales is not ruled out.