News Grower

Independent coverage of AI, startups, and technology.

Ars Technica Apr 23, 2026 at 20:57 Big Tech Rising Hot

We still don't have a more precise value for "Big G"

Such experiments bring "order to the universe, whether or not the number agrees with the expected value.”

Signal weather

Rising

Momentum is building quickly, so this card is a good early entry point into the topic.

By Jennifer Ouellette Original source
We still don't have a more precise value for "Big G"

The gravitational constant, affectionally known as "Big G," is one of the most fundamental constants of our universe. Its value describes the strength of the gravitational force acting on two masses separated by a given distance—or if you want to be relativistic about it, the amount a given mass curves space-time. Physicists have a solid ballpark figure for the value of Big G, but they've been trying to measure it ever more precisely for more than two centuries, each effort yielding slightly different values. And we do mean slight: The values vary by roughly one part in 10,000. Still, other fundamental constants are known much more precisely. So Big G is the black sheep of the family and a point of frustration for physicists keen on precision metrology. The problem is that gravity is so weak, by far the weakest of the four fundamental forces, so there is significant background noise from the gravitational field of the Earth (aka "little g"). That weakness is even more pronounced in a laboratory. In the latest effort to resolve the issue, scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) spent the last decade replicating one of the most divergent recent experimental results. The group just announced their results in a paper published in the journal Metrologia. It does not resolve the discrepancy, but it gives physicists one more data point in their ongoing quest to nail down a more precise value for Big G.Read full article Comments

Stay on the signal

Follow We still don't have a more precise value for "Big G"

Follow this story beyond a single article: new follow-ups, adjacent sources, and the evolving storyline.

We send a confirmation link first, then only meaningful digests.

Story map

Understand this topic fast

A quick entry into the story: why it matters now, who is involved, and where to go next for context.

Why it matters now

Fresh coverage with immediate momentum.
There are already 6 connected articles in the same storyline to continue from here.
The story keeps orbiting around Ars Technica, Big G, and Expected, so the entity pages are the fastest way to build context.
Ars Technica already has 4 follow-up stories on the same theme.

Topic constellation

Open the live map for this story

See which entities, story threads, sources, and follow-up articles shape this story right now.

Click nodes to continue

Entity Cluster Article Hub Source

Story timeline

Continue with this story

A short sequence of events and follow-up stories to understand the arc quickly.

Apr 23, 2026 at 22:14 Ars Technica

Visitors to this private space station won't be wearing shorts and T-shirts

Can you wear white after Labor Day if your destination is Earth orbit?

Apr 23, 2026 at 21:45 Ars Technica

US accuses China of “industrial-scale” AI theft. China says it’s “slander.”

Trump-Xi summit may be rocked by US mulling huge sanctions.

Apr 23, 2026 at 21:22 Ars Technica

Carbon nanotube wiring gets closer to competing with copper

While this material degrades over time, it could point to better ones.

Apr 23, 2026 at 20:57 Ars Technica

We still don't have a more precise value for "Big G"

Such experiments bring "order to the universe, whether or not the number agrees with the expected value.”

Apr 23, 2026 at 20:41 Ars Technica

In a first, a ransomware family is confirmed to be quantum-safe

Technically speaking, there's no practical benefit to use PQC. So why is it being used?

Apr 23, 2026 at 18:05 Ars Technica

RFK Jr.’s rejection of germ theory debunked in Senate hearing

Kennedy falsely argues that vaccines did little to lower childhood deaths.

How reliable this looks

Signal and trust for Ars Technica

This source works at a rapid pace: 100% of recent stories land in the hot window, and 0% carry visible search signal.

Trusted

Reliability

92

Freshness

100

Sources in storyline

1

Related articles

More stories that share tags, source, or category context.

More from Ars Technica

Fresh reporting and follow-up coverage from the same newsroom.

Open source page