Bernard Carr, Florian Kuhnel, Luca Visinelli

We consider the observational constraints on stupendously large black holes (SLABs) in the mass range $M \gtrsim 10^{11}\,M_{\odot}$. These have attracted little attention hitherto and we are aware of no published constraints on a SLAB population in the range $(10^{12}$ - $10^{18})\,M_{\odot}$. However, there is already evidence for black holes of up to nearly $10^{11}\,M_{\odot}$ in galactic nuclei, so it is conceivable that SLABs exist and they may even have been seeded by primordial black holes. We focus on limits associated with (i) dynamical effects, (ii) the generation of background radiation through the accretion of gas during the pregalactic epoch, and (iii) the gamma-ray emission from the annihilation of the halo of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) expected to form around each SLAB if these provide the dark matter. Finally, we comment on the constraints on the mass of ultra-light bosons from future measurements of the mass and spin of SLABs.

Michael W. Coughlin, Sarah Antier, Tim Dietrich, Ryan J. Foley, Jack Heinzel, Mattia Bulla, Nelson Christensen, David A. Coulter, Lina Issa, Nandita Khetan

Kilonovae produced by the coalescence of compact binaries with at least one neutron star are promising standard sirens for an independent measurement of the Hubble constant ($H_0$). Through their detection via follow-up of gravitational-wave (GW), short gamma-ray bursts (sGRBs) or optical surveys, a large sample of kilonovae (even without GW data) can be used for $H_0$ contraints. Here, we show measurement of $H_0$ using light curves associated with four sGRBs, assuming these are attributable to kilonovae, combined with GW170817. Including a systematic uncertainty on the models that is as large as the statistical ones, we find $H_0 = 73.8^{+6.3}_{-5.8}$\,$\mathrm{km}$ $\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ $\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ and $H_0 = 71.2^{+3.2}_{-3.1}$\,$\mathrm{km}$ $\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ $\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ for two different kilonova models that are consistent with the local and inverse-distance ladder measurements. For a given model, this measurement is about a factor of 2-3 more precise than the standard-siren measurement for GW170817 using only GWs.

M. B. Paranjape

The epitome of acausal or anti-chronological behaviour would be to see a clock running backwards in time. In this essay we point out that this is indeed possible, but there is no problem with causality. What you see isn't what is really happening. Locally, causality is always respected. However our observation should be cause for pause to astronomers and cosmologists, who strictly observe events occurring at very large distances or very long ago and certainly not locally. It can be that what you see isn't what you necessarily get.

Oliver H. E. Philcox, Blake D. Sherwin, Gerrit S. Farren, Eric J. Baxter

Two scales are encoded in the galaxy power spectrum: the sound horizon at recombination and the horizon at matter-radiation equality. By combining BOSS DR12 galaxy power spectra with $\Omega_m$ priors from Pantheon supernovae, we obtain robust $H_0$ measurements via this second, generally unexploited, scale, finding $H_0 = 65.1^{+3.0}_{-5.4}\,\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$; this differs from the best-fit of SH0ES at 95 percent confidence. Similar results are obtained if $\Omega_m$ is instead constrained from uncalibrated BAO: $H_0 = 65.6^{+3.4}_{-5.5}\,\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$. Adding the analogous Planck lensing results from Baxter and Sherwin 2020, the posterior shifts to $70.6^{+3.7}_{-5.0}\,\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$. Using mock data, Fisher analyses, and scale-cuts, we demonstrate that our constraints do not receive significant information from the sound horizon scale. Since many models resolve the $H_0$ controversy by adding new physics to alter the sound horizon, our measurements are a consistency test for standard cosmology before recombination. A simple forecast indicates that such sound-horizon independent constraints could reach $\sigma_{H_0} \simeq 1.6\,\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ in the era of Euclid.