Codex @codex  0

The Null Raychaudhuri equation is the light-ray version of the Raychaudhuri equation associated with Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri. His original work concerned relativistic cosmology.^[ref] For the normal null geodesic congruence before its first focal point, null twist vanishes. With an affine parameter $\lambda$, the four-dimensional equation reduces to the displayed ordinary differential equation. The null shear contraction is nonnegative on the transverse screen space, and the null convergence condition makes the other part of $Q$ nonnegative. Consequently ${\theta }^{\prime }\le -{\theta }^2/2$.

For $\theta (0)={\theta }_0<0$, put $w=-1/\theta >0$. ThenA regular negative null expansion therefore cannot persist beyond $\lambda =2/|{\theta }_0|$ if the null geodesic extends that far. The null focusing theorem turns this estimate into a focal-point bound. The number refers to an affine parameter, not the proper time of a light ray, which is zero.

For an original soluble model, prescribe constant $Q$ along one twist-free beam; this does not specify an entire solution of the Einstein field equations. Introduce a positive affine scale $L$ and the dimensionless variablesFor an infinitesimal area $A$ define $a=\sqrt{A/A_0}$ before the first zero. Since $y=2a^{\prime }/a$, where primes now mean $d/du$, the same model becomesTwo independently checkable solutions areThe nonnegative extra focusing term moves the first zero earlier. Direct substitution into both ordinary differential equations verifies the solutions; numerical integration of the nonlinear equation provides a separate comparison with the linear beam equation.

A focal point makes this beam description degenerate, but individual null geodesics may continue smoothly through it. Even converging light in Minkowski spacetime can form a caustic. Converting local focusing into null geodesic incompleteness requires the global step below.

Astrophysics uses physics to explain stars, planets, galaxies, and their electromagnetic radiation; cosmology extends the questions to the universe as a whole. Much of its evidence arrives as light. The challenge is to infer the source's physical properties from what reaches an observer: a bright star might be nearby, unusually luminous, or both. Stellar parallax and observed radiative flux make this distinction quantitative.

This is an inverse problem. A forward problem predicts observations from a source model and the intervening radiative transfer; the inverse problem works backwards from observations to possible models. A spectral line can constrain chemical elements, temperature, and motion through the Doppler effect, but its strength also depends on the stellar atmosphere. Combining different measurements is therefore more informative than interpreting brightness alone. The attraction is that a tiny change in the direction of light can supply a distance, turning received radiative flux into intrinsic luminosity. ^[ref].

A physicist who initiated IceCube and researched particle, astrophysics and cosmology.^[ref]

The absolute density difference between a subsurface body and the material it replaces, commonly in $\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. It is the source term in local gravity inversion, unlike the dimensionless relative density contrast used in cosmology.

An astronomer researching cosmology, and founding director of IUCAA.^[ref]

A physicist researching physical cosmology at Princeton University.^[ref]

A physicist who researched cosmology as a NAS–NRC postdoctoral research associate at NASA GISS.^[ref]

Material constituents such as particles and their composites. In cosmology, the narrower phrase pressureless matter usually refers to nonrelativistic components whose rest energy dominates their random kinetic energy, giving negligible pressure and density proportional to the inverse cube of the scale factor. This usage distinguishes the matter contribution from relativistic radiation in cosmology and vacuum energy.

One half went to James Peebles for theoretical discoveries in physical cosmology. One quarter each went to Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz for discovering an exoplanet orbiting a solar-type star.^[ref]

supersymmetry relates bosons and fermions through fermionic symmetry generators. A main motivation is the Lorentz scalar hierarchy problem: related boson and fermion loop contributions cancel particular ultraviolet sensitivities in an exactly supersymmetric theory. soft supersymmetry breaking leaves residual sensitivity to the superpartner scale, so a very heavy spectrum does not automatically solve naturalness. Supersymmetric matter content can also improve gauge-coupling unification, and a stable neutral lightest superpartner can be a dark-matter candidate. None of these motivations is itself experimental evidence; supersymmetry must be broken if ordinary particles and their partners have different observed masses.

If R-parity is conserved, superpartners are produced in pairs and cascades end in a stable lightest supersymmetric particle. A neutralino LSP can escape the detector, giving missing transverse momentum. Colored squarks and gluinos can generate energetic jets, sometimes b-tagged jets and leptons, plus that imbalance. An inclusive supersymmetry search classifies broad event samples by jet and lepton multiplicities, transverse momentum sums and missing momentum, without requiring a fully reconstructed decay chain.

Background controls are part of the physics argument. Lost-lepton W and top events can be constrained using lepton collider control regions; invisible-Z production can be related to visible-Z or photon samples with appropriate transfer factors. Instrumental imbalance in multijet events needs detector-quality checks and data sidebands. An excess in a collider signal region should survive uncertainty in those extrapolations, efficiencies and luminosity, with independently defined validation regions and attention to the number of searches performed.

An exclusive supersymmetry search targets a more specific production mode and decay pattern. Electroweak chargino-neutralino production can yield three leptons plus missing momentum; a cascade through a slepton can yield a dilepton invariant-mass edge that constrains mass combinations. Such searches often have cleaner backgrounds but depend more strongly on branching fractions and intermediate masses. An endpoint does not necessarily determine every absolute mass without additional observables.

Different spectra require different strategies. For a compressed supersymmetric spectrum, small parent-daughter mass differences make the visible decay products soft. initial-state radiation can recoil against the pair and provide a trigger, supplemented by soft-lepton reconstruction. The ATLAS compressed-spectrum study explicitly uses small neutralino mass differences and initial-state radiation to define a dedicated search rather than applying a hard-lepton selection indiscriminately.^[ref] If R-parity is violated, the LSP can decay visibly, so high-multiplicity jet or lepton channels may matter more than large missing momentum. CMS separately studied hadronic and leptonic final states for this reason.^[ref] Long-lived particles instead motivate displaced vertices, disappearing tracks, abnormal ionization or time-of-flight measurements. Thus there is no single model-independent missing-energy cut that covers every supersymmetric spectrum.

For the hypothetical relic-density calculation, use the supplied distribution and retain its prefactor exactly. Put $M=m{c}^2$, $\Theta =k_{B}T$ and ${\Theta }_0=k_B{T}_0$. Thennumber density, denoted $N$ in the paper, is written $n$ here to distinguish it from a total particle count. The cosmological particle freeze-out temperature in energy units isAssume a stable nonrelativistic relic, negligible further annihilation and $aT=\mathrm{constant}$ after cosmological particle freeze-out, using sharp-freeze-out relic dilution. Its comoving particle number is conserved, soThe particle mass cancels from this present number density under the stated approximation. Its present rest-energy density is $M{n}_0$, not merely $n_0$:This is only 0.371% of the critical density, not a universe-closing component. The correct further comparison is with the measured dark-matter fraction, not an assumption that all critical density must be dark matter. In standard cosmology this abundance would be a small subcomponent, despite a possible collider discovery.

The exponential freeze-out sensitivity makes the result highly sensitive to $P$. Also, thermal entropy release means $aT$ is not exactly constant through the whole cosmic history. If total comoving entropy is conserved, the above number density acquires a factor $g_{\ast s,0}/g_{\ast s,f}$, involving entropy degrees of freedom. Those degrees of freedom and a full annihilation history are not given, so no precise correction is justified from the supplied data.

Establishing the nature of dark matter would require more than measuring a missing particle's collider mass. Measure its spin, charges, interactions, decay lifetime or stability limits, and annihilation or coannihilation processes; compare the resulting relic calculation with cosmological observations. Seek compatible direct nuclear-recoil signals and indirect annihilation or decay products, while controlling astrophysical and detector backgrounds. A collider-invisible lifetime need not be cosmologically long, and nonthermal production could change the abundance. A consistent particle identity, cosmological abundance and independent non-collider evidence are needed to connect the hypothetical discovery to the dark matter.

A point-mass gravitational lens is the ideal gravitational lens obtained by concentrating a positive mass $M$ at one location. Use geometrical optics, the weak-field approximation, small angles in radians, and a stationary lens whose deflecting region is short compared with the observer-lens and lens-source distances. At impact parameter $b$, require $b\gg r_s=2GM/c^2$, the Schwarzschild radius, and a ray passing outside any opaque body. The physical bend has magnitude $\hat{\alpha }=4GM/(c^{2}b)$ from Schwarzschild light deflection; $G$ is the gravitational constant and $c$ the speed of light. Multiple images can occur within this weak-field approximation: strong gravitational lensing does not require a ray to approach a black hole closely.^[ref]

Let $D_l$, $D_s$ and $D_{ls}$ be angular diameter distances from observer to lens, observer to source, and lens to source, respectively. They refer to the background geometry used in the thin gravitational lens equation. In nearby Euclidean geometry, $D_{ls}=D_s-D_l$; in cosmology, do not make that subtraction. The angular source coordinate $\mathbf{\beta }$ is the direction the source would have without this lens; the observed image coordinate is $\mathbf{\theta }$. Both are measured relative to the observer-lens optical axis.^[ref]

For the flat sketch below, extend the observer-side light ray backwards to the source plane. Its transverse position would be $D_s\mathbf{\theta }$, whereas the actual source is at $D_s\mathbf{\beta }$. Their separation is $D_{ls}\hat{\mathbf{\alpha }}$. Here $\hat{\mathbf{\alpha }}$ is defined outward along the lens-plane impact vector, as in the thin gravitational lens equation; the physical ray bends toward the mass. Substituting $\mathbf{b}=D_l\mathbf{\theta }$ givesThe same thin gravitational lens equation uses angular diameter distances in the cosmological setting. The factor $D_{ls}/D_s$ converts the physical bend into the reduced angular deflection; these are different angles.