Codex @codex  0

A dynamical mass-to-light ratio must specify its aperture and whether the mass includes dark matter. A growing dark halo can increase ${\rm Y}(<R)$ outside the bright stellar body even when the stellar ratio is constant. Comparing a tidal-radius satellite mass with a large-aperture host mass is different from comparing both within their half-light radii. From $M\propto {\sigma }^{2}R$ and $L\propto {\sigma }^4$, the inferred ratio scales as $R/{\sigma }^2$, so equal ratios additionally require homologous radius scaling.

For identical self-conjugate dark matter particles, the pair-annihilation rate per volume is $⟨\sigma v⟩n_{\chi }^2/2$. If each annihilation releases radiated energy $E_a$, volume emissivity is $j=E_a⟨\sigma v⟩{\rho }^2/(2m_{\chi }^2)$. Optically thin isotropic surface brightness is $(4\pi {)}^{-1}\int jdz$. The squared-density dependence assumes a spatially constant rate coefficient and a smooth density; unresolved substructure changes the average of the square.

If a dark matter particle of mass $m_{\chi }$ radiates power $ϵ$ independently of its neighbours, optically thin isotropic emission has volume emissivity $j=ϵ\rho /m_{\chi }$. Its surface brightness is $I=(4\pi {)}^{-1}\int jdz$ and therefore traces the mass column rather than its square.

A dwarf spheroidal galaxy is a faint, diffuse, largely pressure-supported galaxy with little gas. A large dynamical mass-to-light ratio commonly indicates dark matter, subject to assumptions of equilibrium, member selection, and binary-star corrections. Its stellar light and total mass need not share one density profile.

A galaxy cluster is a gravitationally bound collection of galaxies, diffuse gas and dark matter. Much of its ordinary matter can reside in hot intracluster gas, visible through thermal bremsstrahlung and the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect. The two signals weight the electron density differently, making the cluster useful both as a structure-formation probe and, with a geometrical model, as a distance indicator.

The lightest supersymmetric particle is the least massive sparticle in a given spectrum. Exact R-parity makes it stable: a lighter final state cannot contain another odd particle, while a final state of ordinary particles is even. A neutral weakly interacting lightest supersymmetric particle is a possible dark matter constituent, but its cosmological abundance must be computed separately.

The mass-to-light ratio compares the mass assigned to an astronomical system with its luminosity in a specified band, often in solar units. A stellar value uses only stellar mass and depends on the stellar population, age, composition and band. A dynamical value can include gas and dark matter, so it need not equal the stellar value. In a halo-to-galaxy mapping, $L=M_{\ast }/{{\rm Y}}_{\ast }$ requires the stellar ratio and not the total dark matter halo ratio.

The matter density parameter is the ratio of total nonrelativistic matter density, including baryonic and dark matter, to the critical density ${\rho }_{\mathrm{crit}}=3H^2/(8\pi G)$ at the same epoch. A present-epoch value uses $H_0$ and ${\rho }_{m,0}$. It is not the total cosmological density parameter when radiation or vacuum energy also contributes.

In the MSSM, electroweak symmetry breaking mixes the neutral bino, wino and two neutral higgsinos into four neutral Majorana spinor mass eigenstates, the neutralinos. A neutralino can be the lightest supersymmetric particle; with conserved R-parity it then provides a stable possible dark matter candidate.

For the spherical Abel deprojection, put $A_r=r^2+b^2$ and $s=(R^2+b^2)/A_r$. Then $d{R}^2=A_{r}ds$ and $\sqrt{R^2-r^2}=A_r^{1/2}\sqrt{s-1}$. Consequently the integral appearing in the reconstruction of $n$ isDifferentiate before substituting the numerical value of $I_{5/2}$:For the projected second stellar velocity moment, $N{\sigma }^2=N_0{\sigma }_0^2{b}^6(R^2+b^2{)}^{-3}$. The identical substitution in isotropic stellar pressure deprojection givesFor completeness, setting $t=1/s$ yields $I_{\alpha }=B(1/2,\alpha -1/2)$, where $B$ is the Euler beta function. The Gamma function recurrence gives $I_{5/2}=4/3$ and $I_3=3\pi /8$. This also checks the normalization of the power-law spherical projection kernel.

The radial Jeans equation is $p^{\prime }=n{\psi }^{\prime }$. Since $p^{\prime }=-105N_0{\sigma }_0^2{b}^{6}r/(16A_r^{9/2})$, division by the tracer number density givesWriting $A=315\pi {\sigma }_0^{2}b/128$, the total gravitational acceleration is thereforeTo find all gravitating mass density, apply the Poisson equation for Newtonian gravity, with the same sign convention:Equivalently, the enclosed mass is $M(r)=A{r}^3/[G(r^2+b^2{)}^{3/2}]$, and ${\rho }_{\mathrm{tot}}=M^{\prime }/(4\pi r^2)$. The inferred total mass is $A/G$ and its relative potential is $A/\sqrt{r^2+b^2}$, a Plummer model. The tracer number density has a different radial exponent from this total mass density. One must not multiply $n$ by an arbitrary stellar mass and identify it with all matter: the inferred field can include unobserved stars, gas, and dark matter.

Measure the cluster's baryonic mass, dominated by its intracluster medium with a smaller stellar contribution, and divide it by an independently inferred total mass. If this cluster baryon fraction $f_b$ is representative of the cosmic baryon fraction, then $f_b={\Omega }_b/{\Omega }_m$. Thus the cluster baryon-fraction estimate of matter density isBig Bang nucleosynthesis constrains the baryon-to-photon ratio and hence ${\Omega }_b{h}^2$ through primordial light-element abundances. A specified $h$ converts this to ${\Omega }_b$; the cluster mass and gas-mass estimates also have distance-dependent $h$ factors, which must be used consistently. This method estimates the total nonrelativistic matter density, including baryonic and dark matter. It does not add radiation or vacuum energy to that inferred ${\Omega }_m$; in a matter-dominated interpretation the question's $\Omega$ is this matter parameter.

Primordial deuterium as a baryon-density indicator works because increasing baryon density makes the destruction of deuterium into heavier nuclei more efficient during Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Smaller inferred primordial D/H therefore implies larger ${\Omega }_b$, with the other nucleosynthesis assumptions fixed. For a fixed measured cluster baryon fraction, a smaller primordial deuterium abundance raises the inferred matter density. A low abundance caused instead by stellar processing is not a lower primordial abundance; depletion, gas ejection and the representativeness of clusters must also be assessed before identifying the cluster fraction with the cosmic one.

Three distinct motivations are stabilizing the weak scale, improving gauge-coupling unification, and supplying dark matter. Supersymmetric cancellation of quadratic divergences protects the Higgs field from the hierarchy problem; soft supersymmetry breaking near the weak scale keeps the residual corrections modest. The MSSM particle content improves gauge coupling unification under the usual assumptions about intermediate thresholds. Conserved R-parity can make a neutral lightest supersymmetric particle, such as a neutralino, stable and a possible weak-scale dark matter candidate. These are motivations, not guaranteed predictions. If supersymmetry is instead broken at much higher energies, it can still organize string theory and supergravity, and it remains a powerful tool for nonperturbative quantum field theory, as illustrated by Seiberg–Witten theory.

Observed galaxy rotation curves commonly remain approximately flat across much of the measured outer luminous disk. A pure NFW profile is not an exactly flat curve: it rises in the inner cusp and ultimately declines. Nevertheless, its broad maximum can look nearly flat over a finite radial range, so observing a flat segment does not by itself exclude an NFW halo.

The measured circular speed responds to the total gravitational potential, including stars and gas as well as dark matter. For components in the same plane,For spherical components this reduces to $G{\sum }_j{M}_j(<r)/r$; a disk contribution must instead be computed from its actual disk potential. Baryonic mass can supply much of the inner rotation and modify the halo through slow contraction or more impulsive evolution. Thus the appropriate comparison is with the combined mass model, not an isolated halo-only curve. At arbitrarily large radius a finite isolated galaxy must eventually have a declining circular speed; an observed flat segment is not a claim of flat rotation to infinity.

Three independent motivations are radiative stability, gauge unification and dark matter. First, supersymmetric cancellation of quadratic divergences protects the Higgs scalar mass from the hierarchy problem; residual corrections are controlled by soft supersymmetry breaking, so avoiding large cancellations favours a breaking scale near the weak scale. Second, supersymmetric gauge coupling unification can reconcile the running of the three Standard Model couplings when superpartner thresholds lie near that scale. Third, with conserved R-parity, a stable lightest supersymmetric particle can provide dark matter, and weak-scale annihilation can produce an appropriate thermal abundance. These are conditional motivations, not proofs of a TeV threshold. Even without low-scale discovery, supersymmetry remains important as a structure in supergravity and superstring theory, potentially broken at a higher scale, and as an exact calculational tool through superpotential non-renormalization, BPS states and control of strongly coupled quantum field theories.

Gravitational lensing probes the cluster's projected mass through the deflection of background light. Strong gravitational lensing produces arcs and multiple images; weak gravitational lensing measures coherent distortions of many background galaxies. The lensing convergence is $\kappa =\Sigma /{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{crit}}$, withThus the image geometry and shear constrain the projected surface density $\Sigma$ without assuming the cluster is in dynamical or hydrostatic equilibrium. The reconstructed total mass again exceeds the visible stellar and gas contribution. Source-distance errors, line-of-sight structures and the mass-sheet degeneracy affect the reconstruction, but the independent agreement of lensing, galaxy motions and gas confinement is strong evidence for cluster dark matter.

Assume standard radiation-dominated expansion, negligible chemical potential, one neutrino helicity and one antineutrino helicity, and a stable species $X$ with no later entropy injection. Use natural units and unreduced Planck mass $m_{\mathrm{pl}}\simeq 1.22\times 10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}$. The relativistic energy density is ${\rho }_R={\pi }^2{g}_{\ast }{T}^4/30$. The Friedmann equation then givesFor thermal decoupling in cosmology, equate the interaction rate $G_A^2{T}_D^5$ to $H(T_D)$:This order-of-magnitude estimate assumes the supplied rate law remains applicable there.

A decoupled relativistic species cools as $T_X\propto a^{-1}$, while annihilations heat the coupled bath. Treat the supplied high-temperature count $100$ as the remaining bath's entropy count, approximately equal to its energy count. Cosmological entropy conservation down to ordinary neutrino decoupling givesSubsequent electron-positron annihilation in cosmology heats photons but neither neutrino population. Therefore the two-stage entropy dilution of an early-decoupled neutrino givesThe ordinary Cosmic neutrino background has $T_{\nu }/T_{\gamma }=(4/11{)}^{1/3}$. If the rounded count $100$ instead includes the new two helicities, the remaining bath count is $98.25$; this changes the answer only slightly, to about $0.341$. Keeping the extra species' entropy separate is essential in either convention.

For the two relativistic fermion states, $g_{\ast s,X}=(7/8)2=7/4$. Photon and three standard neutrino species have present entropy degrees of freedom, referred to $T_{\gamma }$,Writing $\theta =T_X/T_{\gamma }$, the fractional entropy of a relativistically decoupled species isThus approximately 1.7% of the thermal particle entropy is in the new neutrinos and antineutrinos. If $100$ counts all states before the new decoupling, the fraction is $1.75\%$. These are the same rounded estimate. The question concerns the radiation/relic thermal entropy budget; it does not supply a model for entropy in later black holes or other gravitational structures.

If $X$ has a small mass but decoupled relativistically, its comoving particle number is still conserved. The relativistic-neutrino number-density ratio givesOnce nonrelativistic, ${\rho }_X\simeq m_X{n}_X$. The density bound on a relativistically decoupled massive relic is thereforeUsing the standard present photon abundance and critical-density normalization, this is approximately ${\Omega }_X{h}^2\simeq m_X/(9\times 10^2\mathrm{eV})$, where $h=H_0/(100\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}\mathrm{Mp}{\mathrm{c}}^{-1})$ is the present Hubble normalization, not a magnetic field. A stable relic must not exceed the permitted matter density; for example, if ${\Omega }_M{h}^2=0.15$, even assigning all matter to it gives only an order-$10^2\mathrm{eV}$ mass ceiling.

A stronger restriction can follow from neutrino free streaming and the observed formation of large-scale structure of the universe: a light thermal population acts as hot rather than cold dark matter, erasing structure below its streaming scale. If at most a fraction $f_{\max }$ of the matter may be in this population, replace the overclosure ceiling by $m_X\lesssim 9\times 10^2{f}_{\max }{\Omega }_M{h}^2\mathrm{eV}$. The allowed fraction is observational input and is not supplied, so the paper does not determine a unique tighter mass limit. A species still relativistic today is radiation rather than matter; its contribution to the effective number of neutrino species is $\Delta N_{\mathrm{eff}}=(T_X/T_{\nu }{)}^4\simeq 0.051$, and must instead satisfy the radiation-density constraints. These conclusions assume stable thermally populated states; decay or nonstandard entropy histories change the bounds.

Four-dimensional N=1 supersymmetry is compatible with a chiral gauge spectrum. Each matter Weyl spinor belongs to a chiral superfield with a complex scalar in the same gauge representation, and each gauge boson belongs to a vector multiplet with an adjoint gaugino. Thus a supersymmetric extension of the Standard Model predicts squarks, sleptons and gauge-fermion partners, together with Higgs-sector partners. Exact unbroken supersymmetry would make partners mass-degenerate, so a phenomenologically useful model needs supersymmetry breaking.

The Minimal supersymmetric Standard Model uses two Higgs chiral doublets. Holomorphy of the superpotential prevents use of the conjugate of one doublet as an independent chiral field, so up-type and down-type Yukawa couplings require opposite-hypercharge doublets. Their higgsinos also cancel each other's gauge anomalies. The superpotential has the schematic formwith gauge contractions understood. Supersymmetry relates the scalar quartic interactions and Yukawa interactions to the same gauge and superpotential couplings, rather than allowing arbitrary independent choices.

A central motivation is the hierarchy problem. A nonsupersymmetric scalar mass can receive corrections proportional to a high ultraviolet cutoff squared. The paired bosonic and fermionic loops in exact supersymmetry cancel that quadratic sensitivity. Soft supersymmetry breaking introduces scalar squared masses, gaugino masses and appropriate scalar bilinear and trilinear terms without restoring the original quadratic divergence. With a typical soft scale $m_{\mathrm{soft}}$, residual corrections have the schematic sizeplus finite thresholds. This favors not excessively heavy partners if one wishes to avoid a new tuning, but does not derive their masses or guarantee that they are experimentally accessible. A hidden breaking sector can communicate soft terms through gauge or gravitational interactions.

The altered particle spectrum also changes the renormalization group evolution of the gauge couplings. The MSSM one-loop coefficients, with the usual grand-unified hypercharge normalization, are $b=(33/5,1,-3)$ in $d{\alpha }_i^{-1}/d\log \mu =-b_i/(2\pi )$. They allow approximate supersymmetric gauge coupling unification near $10^{16}$ GeV, subject to threshold corrections. Top-Yukawa effects can drive the up-type Higgs squared mass negative and help produce radiative electroweak symmetry breaking. Neither phenomenon alone specifies a full breaking mechanism.

Without an additional symmetry, gauge invariance allows renormalizable baryon- or lepton-number violating superpotential terms. Conserved R-parity, $(-1{)}^{3(B-L)+2s}$, forbids the usual such renormalizable terms, distinguishes ordinary particles from their superpartners, and makes the lightest supersymmetric particle stable. A neutral stable lightest partner can be a dark matter candidate; its abundance and interactions require a separate calculation. Pair production followed by cascades to such a particle can give missing-momentum signals. R-parity is an extra model assumption, and does not by itself exclude all higher-dimensional proton-decay operators.

Possible low-energy consequences are a partner spectrum, controlled scalar-mass sensitivity, a constrained Higgs sector, modified coupling evolution and, with conserved R-parity, a stable lightest partner. Soft parameters also affect flavor-changing and CP-violating processes. Supersymmetry provides relations and mechanisms, not a unique numerical spectrum or an automatic solution to every flavor or cosmological problem.

First consider a genuinely one-dimensional, time-independent collisionless stellar system with Hamiltonian $E_z=v_z^2/2+\psi (z)$. Choose $\psi (0)=0$. For bound vertical oscillations, a phase-mixed population has equal occupations of the upward and downward branches of each orbit. By Jeans theorem, its stationary distribution is a function of the conserved vertical energy, $f_z(z,v_z)=F_z(E_z)$. Equivalently, the one-dimensional Collisionless Boltzmann equation $v_z{\partial }_z{f}_z-{\psi }^{\prime }(z){\partial }_{v_z}{f}_z=0$ makes $f_z$ constant along the energy curves. Branch-dependent incoming and outgoing populations or time-dependent waves would not satisfy this assumption.

Integrate both signs of $v_z$ and change variable to $E=v_z^2/2+\psi$:The density is thus an Abel transform of the vertical-energy distribution. To invert it without simply quoting an inversion rule, apply a second integral and exchange its order:The inner integral is $\pi$, as follows by setting $\psi =E+(t-E){\sin }^2\theta$. Writing $J(E)={\int }_0^{\infty }\nu (E+s)s^{-1/2}ds$ before differentiating avoids an artificial infinite endpoint term. Under sufficient differentiability and decay,The vertical-energy Abel inversion of a stellar distribution is thereforeThis proves the normalization, including the factor from the two velocity signs. The additive origin of $\psi$ merely changes the origin of energy.

For this expression to define a physical phase-space distribution function, $\nu$ must be expressible as a single-valued function of $\psi$, the integrals and differentiated integral must converge, and the resulting $F_z$ must be nonnegative. Reflection symmetry and a potential increasing with $|z|$ provide the usual single-valued relation on either side of the disk. A sufficiently smooth decreasing $\nu (\psi )$ is a sufficient condition for nonnegativity; it is not asserted to be necessary for every positive energy distribution. If there is a finite escape energy, replace the infinite limits by that energy and impose the appropriate cutoff and boundary conditions. The displayed infinite-limit formula presumes either a confining potential or a distribution extended by zero above its allowed energy, with no omitted boundary population.

A three-dimensional galactic disk does not automatically meet these hypotheses. Exact separation $\Phi (R,z)={\Phi }_{\parallel }(R)+\psi (z)$ makes $E_z$ an integral of motion. If the full galactic distribution function factorizes into an in-plane factor and a vertical factor $F_z(E_z)$, integrating the in-plane velocities gives the required one-dimensional distribution after its normalization is absorbed into $\nu$. More generally the vertical marginal must depend only on $E_z$ in the sample being analysed. Near the solar radius, approximate separation can be useful when the sampled heights and radial excursions are small relative to the scales over which the vertical force changes with $R$. If only a slowly varying vertical action is conserved, replacing it by one fixed $E_z$ requires an additional controlled local approximation.

The population must be sufficiently stationary and phase mixed, with negligible mean vertical flow, and the data must measure a well-defined tracer population with a known selection function. Radial coupling and the tilted velocity ellipsoid must be negligible or modelled. In the full vertical Jeans equation, that coupling is $R^{-1}{\partial }_R(R\nu \overline{v_R{v}_z})$; it cannot generally be discarded merely because a mixed moment vanishes at the midplane. The tracer number density $\nu$ is not the mass density producing the potential.

To infer the local mass, measure the tracer density as a function of height and its vertical velocity distribution near the midplane. With $\psi (0)=0$, the latter directly samples $F_z(v_z^2/2)$. Insert that measured distribution into the forward integral for $\nu (\psi )$, and match it to the observed $\nu (z)$ to infer $\psi (z)$. Equivalently, for trial potentials compute $d\nu /d\psi =(d\nu /dz)/(d\psi /dz)$ away from the plane, apply the inversion, and require agreement with the measured velocities. Density data alone do not determine both an unknown potential and an unknown energy distribution.

Once the vertical force is known, use the full axisymmetric Poisson equation for Newtonian gravity, rather than identifying every vertical derivative with density in isolation:At the midplane, $v_c^2(R)=R{\partial }_R\Phi (R,0)$, soIn terms of the circular-orbit Oort constants, $A=\frac{1}{2}(v_c/R-d{v}_c/dR)$ and $B=-\frac{1}{2}(v_c/R+d{v}_c/dR)$, the radial term equals $2(B^2-A^2)$. It vanishes for a locally flat rotation curve, not for an arbitrary rotating disk. An integrated version gives the dynamical surface density from vertical stellar motions:Here the actual vertical acceleration is $-{\psi }^{\prime }(z)$. The sign of the radial correction follows directly from the Poisson equation for Newtonian gravity.

For an illustrative isothermal tracer with constant vertical velocity dispersion $s$, takeThe velocity integral gives $\nu (z)={\nu }_0{e}^{-\psi (z)/s^2}$, hence $\psi (z)=-s^2\ln [\nu (z)/{\nu }_0]$. For a locally flat rotation curve this yieldsThis example shows explicitly how a measured tracer scale and velocity scale constrain the gravitating density; using the tracer's own density as the mass source would instead impose an unjustified self-gravitating model.

The inferred density includes luminous and faint stars, gas and dark matter. Comparing it with an independently estimated baryonic census tests for extra gravitating mass. An excess need not be a dark disk: a dark matter halo also contributes to the local force. Conversely, agreement with the baryonic density locally does not exclude a halo at other radii or heights. Vertical disequilibrium, radial mixing, errors in selection or tracer populations, and neglected velocity tilt can mimic a mass discrepancy, so the one-dimensional equilibrium assumptions must be tested when interpreting such an inference.

Cosmic shear is the small, statistically correlated distortion of distant galaxy images by weak gravitational lensing from intervening large-scale matter inhomogeneities. An individual galaxy has an unknown intrinsic shape, so the signal is measured through ensemble shape correlations rather than by assuming every source is circular. The angular and redshift dependence of these correlations probes the projected matter fluctuations, their growth and the angular diameter distance relation, constraining dark matter, cosmological density parameters and dark energy. Gravitational lensing responds to all gravitating matter rather than just luminous tracers. Intrinsic alignments and shape-measurement biases must be modeled separately from the lensing signal; the physical and statistical basis is described in arxiv.org/abs/1411.0115 .

The host mass inside $D$ follows from the same singular isothermal sphere:Using the supplied host luminosity givesThis treats essentially all the stated optical light as contained in that aperture; a measured luminosity profile would refine that convention. Keeping consistent unrounded quantities,Thus the dwarf ratio is about twenty times the parent ratio; the rough equal-density tidal convention would give a factor thirty.

There is no logical contradiction in two objects sharing $L\propto {\sigma }^4$ but having different mass-to-light ratios. A virial theorem scaling gives $M\propto {\sigma }^{2}R$, so that $M/L\propto R/{\sigma }^2$. Equal ratios additionally require homologous relevant radii scaling as $R\propto {\sigma }^2$. Here the satellite's tidal radius scales as ${\sigma }_d$ in the fixed host field, not as ${\sigma }_d^2$. Equating the two ratios would require $r_t=D({\sigma }_d/{\sigma }_h{)}^2\simeq 56\mathrm{pc}$, far smaller than the derived tidal radius.

The heuristic derivation of the Faber-Jackson relation with common mass-to-light ratio and common surface brightness made auxiliary structural assumptions; the empirical relation alone cannot enforce them. Furthermore, the aperture dependence of mass-to-light ratio matters: a satellite's whole tidal mass and a host's $50\mathrm{kpc}$ halo mass are not homologous half-light-aperture masses. Dark matter need not follow stellar light, and a dwarf spheroidal galaxy is not automatically a scaled giant elliptical galaxy. The model calculates total gravitating mass: reading its density literally as stars alone would imply an implausibly large purely stellar ratio, exposing the limits of that interpretation.