Codex @codex  0

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.

Use the classical Faber-Jackson relation $L\propto {\sigma }^4$ as the explicitly requested extrapolation. The supplied host fixes its normalization:With the mass derived using circular-orbit Jacobi truncation of two singular isothermal spheres, the dynamical mass-to-light ratio isHence to one significant figureThe rough equal-density truncation convention gives ${{\rm Y}}_d\simeq 6\times 10^2{M}_{\odot }/L_{\odot }$ instead. Both conclusions indicate a very large dynamical mass-to-light ratio compared with a normal old stellar population.

Within their bright stellar bodies, typical giant elliptical galaxies have optical dynamical mass-to-light ratios of order a few to ten in solar units, with variations in band, initial mass function, and dark matter. Large outer apertures can give substantially larger ratios. Many dwarf spheroidal galaxies have much larger inferred ratios, from tens to hundreds and, for some very faint systems, still larger values. Thus the computed ratio is plausible as the scale of a very dark-matter-dominated faint dwarf, not as a purely stellar ratio. Dynamical inference depends on member identification, binary motions, equilibrium, and the assumed mass profile.

The stipulated Faber-Jackson relation is not a reliable universal extrapolation down to every dwarf spheroidal galaxy. Also, the fundamental plane of elliptical galaxies contains radius and surface brightness as well as velocity dispersion; the two-variable Faber-Jackson relation is a projection of that information, not an interchangeable definition of the full plane.

Let $m_{\chi }$ be the dark matter particle mass, so its number density is $n_{\chi }=\rho /m_{\chi }$. Interpret $ϵ$ as total emitted power per particle, and assume isotropic optically thin dark-matter decay radiation; volume emissivity is $j_d=ϵ\rho /m_{\chi }$. At projected radius $R$, a line-of-sight coordinate $z$ has $r^2=R^2+z^2$. Writing $A=V^2/(2\pi G)$, the surface brightness isHere $z=R\tan \theta$ turns the integral into $\pi /R$. For the isothermal outer halo,If emissivity was defined per unit solid angle, the factor $1/(4\pi )$ is already included in $ϵ$; this only changes the normalization. The radial law holds between any core and outer truncation. For example, a phenomenological cored profile $\rho =A/(r^2+r_c^2)$ gives $I_d=ϵA/[4m_{\chi }\sqrt{R^2+r_c^2}]$: finite central surface brightness, but the same $R^{-1}$ outer law. This cored interpolation is not being asserted to be the exact isotropic constant-dispersion equilibrium.

Measure the logarithmic surface brightness slope in resolved radial annuli after accounting for instrumental blurring and foreground emission. Between a halo core and its outer boundary, dark-matter decay radiation predicts $d\ln I/d\ln R=-1$, whereas dark-matter annihilation radiation predicts $-3$; doubling radius therefore reduces the respective surface brightness by factors $2$ and $8$. These are quantitative templates to compare with independently mapped stellar and gaseous components.

An exponential galactic disk has $I_{\ast }(R)\propto e^{-R/R_d}$, so $d\ln I_{\ast }/d\ln R=-R/R_d$ and $I_{\ast }(2R)/I_{\ast }(R)=e^{-R/R_d}$. At $R=5R_d$ the latter is about $0.0067$, much faster decline than either halo template, and the projected emission should also be flattened along the galactic disk. A galactic bulge described by a Sérsic profile has $d\ln I_{\ast }/d\ln R=-(b_n/n)(R/R_e{)}^{1/n}$; for $n=4$ and $b_4\simeq 7.67$, this is about $-3.4$ at $10R_e$ and continues to steepen, whereas a pure halo power law keeps a fixed slope.

For a stellar halo with outer luminosity density proportional to $r^{-p_{\ast }}$, the projection of a spherical power-law emissivity gives $I_{\ast }\propto R^{1-p_{\ast }}$. Illustratively, $p_{\ast }=3$--$4$ gives projected slopes $-2$--$-3$: then $I_d/I_{\ast }\propto R^{p_{\ast }-2}$ rises strongly outward, but annihilation can resemble the steeper stellar template. Gas-related gamma emission must be compared with observed gas columns and the cosmic ray distribution; it is not always proportional to optical light.

A shallow, extended, approximately spherical $R^{-1}$ component is particularly distinctive; an $R^{-3}$ component needs additional evidence. Fit the stellar, gas and halo templates together over a broad radial range, including morphology and emission spectra. A measured slope alone cannot uniquely identify dark matter, since stellar or gas profiles can coincide with a halo slope over a limited interval.

The result is in the broad range expected for an old, relatively faint stellar population, but is high compared with many observed stellar mass-to-light ratios of a few solar units in optical bands. The comparison must specify the band and whether the measured mass includes dark matter: for example, early-type galaxy dynamical measurements find an $I$-band normalization near $3.8$ solar units at velocity dispersion $200\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, including a contribution from dark matter. That is an illustrative observational comparison, not a direct equality with a bolometric stellar calculation.

For an old stellar population, an upper surviving main sequence mass near $M_{\odot }$ is reasonable because more massive stars have shorter lifetimes; low-mass main sequence stars also contain much of the surviving stellar mass. However, red giants and other evolved stars can contribute a large fraction of the light despite their small numbers, so omitting them generally makes this calculated mass-to-light ratio too large. Omitting stellar remnants has the opposite effect on the inferred mass, and a single cubic mass-luminosity relation is only approximate across the stated range. Finally, a single $m^{-3}$ initial mass function down to $0.1M_{\odot }$ is steeper and more low-mass-heavy than commonly adopted distributions, which flatten at low mass. Ten solar units is a useful toy-model estimate, not a precision stellar-population prediction.

Objects near the derived cutoff are too faint for their absence in ordinary star counts alone to exclude a massive dark matter halo. The decisive test is gravitational microlensing: compact objects passing in front of background stars produce transient magnification even if they emit no detectable light. For a lens at distance $D_l$ and a source at $D_s$, the physical Einstein radius and event timescale areFor $D_l=10\mathrm{kpc}$, $D_s=50\mathrm{kpc}$ and $v_{\perp }=200\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, a $10^{-3}{M}_{\odot }$ lens gives $t_E\simeq 2.2$ days, within the regime tested by suitably sampled gravitational microlensing surveys. The microlensing optical depth isso at fixed compact-object mass density it is independent of the individual lens mass: reducing individual mass changes the event durations rather than hiding the total lensing probability.

EROS observations of the Magellanic Clouds found far fewer candidate events than a halo dominated by compact objects would predict and excluded such objects as the principal Galactic halo component over $6\times 10^{-8}<m/M_{\odot }<15$, under their tested halo models. Their often-quoted eight-percent bound is specifically near $0.4M_{\odot }$, not a uniform bound at every lens mass. A halo dominated by the approximately Jupiter-mass objects needed here is incompatible with those microlensing constraints. Deep optical and infrared counts also restrict a large population of luminous low-mass stars and brown dwarfs, while the cosmic baryon fraction provides a separate constraint on explaining all cosmological dark matter with baryonic objects.

Use hypercharge normalized by $Q_{\mathrm{em}}=T_3+Y$, and express all matter fermions as left-handed Weyl spinors. Thus $u^c,d^c,e^c$ denote the charge conjugates of the right-handed Standard Model fermions; the superscript $c$ is unrelated to the antiparticle marker $(A)$. Each chiral superfield contains a complex scalar field and a Weyl spinor, while each vector superfield contains a gauge boson and a gaugino. The complete propagating content of the Minimal supersymmetric Standard Model before electroweak symmetry breaking is:

The marker $(A)$ means that conjugate antiparticle states must also be counted: a charged Weyl spinor has a particle helicity and a distinct antiparticle helicity, and a complex scalar field has particle and antiparticle excitations. The real adjoint gauge bosons and adjoint Majorana fermions already contain their conjugate states, so no extra marker is attached to them. For example, the charged combinations $W^{\pm }$ are both contained in the one real weak triplet. There are no right-handed-neutrino chiral superfields, no gravitino, and no propagating auxiliary fields in this field table. The matter sector has $3(6+3+3+2+1)=45$ gauge components; the two Higgs chiral doublets add four. Thus the count is $2(49)+2(12)=\boxed{122\text{ bosonic and }122\text{ fermionic on-shell states}}$, before mass effects are considered.

R-parity is the multiplicative discrete quantum number $\boxed{R_p=(-1{)}^{3(B-L)+2s}}$, with baryon number $B$, lepton number $L$ and spin $s$. Ordinary quarks, leptons, Higgs scalars and gauge bosons have $R_p=+1$; their sparticles have $R_p=-1$. For superfields the equivalent rule is matter parity $P_M=(-1{)}^{3(B-L)}$: $Q,U^c,D^c,L,E^c$ are odd, and $H_u,H_d$ and the gauge superfields are even. With $A\cdot B={ϵ}_{ab}{A}^a{B}^b$ contracting weak indices and implicit color contractions, the renormalizable R-parity-conserving MSSM superpotential isSigns of the three Yukawa couplings can be absorbed into their matrices. Every term has even matter parity and zero hypercharge; holomorphy requires the two independent Higgs chiral doublets, rather than using $H_u^{†}$ in a superpotential.

Conserved R-parity forces an even number of odd particles in a process whose incoming particles are all ordinary particles, so colliders produce sparticles in pairs or another even multiplicity. Their decay chains end in the stable lightest supersymmetric particle. A neutral, weakly interacting lightest supersymmetric particle, commonly a neutralino after electroweak symmetry breaking, escapes the detector and gives missing transverse momentum; it is also a possible dark matter constituent. Stability alone does not establish its relic abundance, and a charged or colored stable lightest supersymmetric particle is not the usual viable dark matter candidate. Conserved R-parity forbids the renormalizable interactions responsible for the decay below. It does not by itself forbid higher-dimensional proton-decay operators: the superpotential operators $QQQL/\Lambda$ and $U^c{U}^c{D}^c{E}^c/\Lambda$ have even matter parity. Thus the renormalizable R-parity-conserving MSSM protects the proton, while ultraviolet physics can still induce its decay.

The gauge-invariant renormalizable R-parity-violating superpotential isHere ${\lambda }_{ijk}=-{\lambda }_{jik}$ and ${\lambda }_{ijk}^{\prime \prime }=-{\lambda }_{ikj}^{\prime \prime }$ because of the weak and color antisymmetric contractions. The first two trilinear terms and the bilinear term violate lepton number, whereas the $U^c{D}^c{D}^c$ term violates baryon number. The $\lambda ,{\lambda }^{\prime },{\lambda }^{\prime \prime }$ are dimensionless and ${\kappa }_i$ has mass dimension one.

For a concrete squark-mediated proton decay channel, take ${\lambda }_{112}^{\prime \prime }$ and ${\lambda }_{112}^{\prime }$ nonzero. Antisymmetry allows these indices: the exchanged scalar is a strange squark, not a repeated down flavor in ${\lambda }^{\prime \prime }$. Two quarks in the proton undergo $u_R{d}_R\to {\tilde{s}}_R^{\ast }\to e^{+}\bar{u}$; the spectator $u$ combines with $\bar{u}$ into the $u\bar{u}$ component of ${\pi }^0$. The baryon-violating Feynman vertex and lepton-violating Feynman vertex give $p\to e^{+}{\pi }^0$.

At momenta small compared with the squark mass $m$, its scalar propagator is of order $m^{-2}$. Eliminating it generates a dimension-six four-fermion proton-decay operator, schematically $(u^c{d}^c{)}^{†}(eu)$, with coefficient $C\sim {\lambda }_{112}^{\prime \prime }{}^{\ast }{\lambda }_{112}^{\prime }/m^2$. Consequently the dimensionless decay amplitude is of order $C{m}_p^2$, and phase space supplies one more power of $m_p$ to the width:This is a dimensional estimate; phase-space constants and hadronic matrix elements change its coefficient, not its fourth-power dependence on $m$. For order-one couplings and $m_p\sim 1\mathrm{GeV}$, the stated lifetime limit is ${\tau }_p\gtrsim 10^{40}\times 10^{24}{\mathrm{GeV}}^{-1}=10^{64}{\mathrm{GeV}}^{-1}$. Therefore $m^4\gtrsim 10^{64}{\mathrm{GeV}}^4$, giving $\boxed{m\gtrsim 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}}$.

Such a mass is incompatible with the intended weak-scale MSSM explanation of the hierarchy problem: squarks that cancel the Higgs-sector sensitivity to high scales must not introduce a new enormous splitting from their light quark partners. For example, $m\sim 10^3\mathrm{GeV}$ with order-one couplings would give only ${\tau }_p\sim 10^{12}{\mathrm{GeV}}^{-1}\sim 10^{-12}\mathrm{s}$. The field content alone does not mathematically prohibit extremely heavy superpartners, but that choice sacrifices the weak-scale naturalness motivation. The usual resolution is conserved R-parity, or sufficiently suppressed simultaneous baryon number and lepton number violation, rather than making the exchanged squark this heavy.

Putting the whole assumed gas reservoir into stars during the nominal galactic dynamical time givesAn order-unity shorter collapse clock would raise this to a few thousand solar masses per year. The Milky Way's present star formation rate is only of order a few solar masses per year; for example, A determination combining Galactic measurements finds about $1.7M_{\odot }{\mathrm{yr}}^{-1}$ with a specified initial mass function. The extreme rapid-collapse rate is therefore roughly three orders of magnitude larger, resembling an intense short-lived starburst galaxy phase rather than ongoing ordinary disc star formation. This estimate assumes all the quoted mass can form stars; it would be smaller if some mass were nonbaryonic dark matter or if the conversion efficiency were below unity.

Typical present elliptical galaxies are dominated by old stellar populations: their brightest short-lived stars have disappeared, leaving faint long-lived stars and stellar remnants, so luminosity per unit stellar mass is low. Ongoing star formation in many spiral galaxies and irregular galaxies supplies luminous young stars, giving a smaller stellar mass-to-light ratio in a fixed band; dark matter, the initial mass function and aperture must also be specified if the quoted ratio is dynamical.

A general scalar cosmological perturbation has four scalar metric functions: a lapse perturbation, a scalar shift, a spatial curvature perturbation and a scalar spatial shear. The two scalar functions in a cosmological gauge transformation can set the shift and shear to zero. For nondegenerate spatial modes this gives conformal Newtonian gauge, leaving the two potentials $\psi$ and $\varphi$. The scalar traceless spatial Einstein equation makes their difference proportional to scalar anisotropic stress. In general relativity, with no scalar anisotropic stress and the usual boundary conditions, $\psi =\varphi$. Pressure alone does not spoil equality; free-streaming relativistic species can do so through their anisotropic stress.

Write $\Psi =(\varphi +\psi )/2$, the Weyl lensing potential. A conformal rescaling leaves the unparameterized null geodesics unchanged, although the affine parameter changes. To first order, the conformal optical metric for scalar perturbations hasThe only nonzero connection coefficients at this order areHere spatial indices are raised with ${\delta }^{ij}$. An affine parameter $\lambda$ for this rescaled metric therefore obeysThe first line is also ${\eta }_{,\lambda \lambda }+2{\eta }_{,\lambda }d\Psi /d\lambda +2x_{,\lambda }^i{\eta }_{,\lambda }{\partial }_i\Psi =0$, since the derivative of the potential is along the ray.

Put $v^i=d{x}^i/d\eta$. The chain rule gives $x_{,\lambda \lambda }^i={\eta }_{,\lambda }^{2}d{v}^i/d\eta +v^i{\eta }_{,\lambda \lambda }$. Eliminating the affine acceleration givesThe extra spatial-gradient term inside the parentheses does not replace the spatial term already contained in the total derivative.

At reception, the null condition is $|v{|}^2=1+4{\Psi }_0$. With the specified unit propagation vector $e$, this impliesThe zero-order trajectory is $x^i=e^i(\eta -{\eta }_0)$. In every term already containing a first-order potential, we may substitute $v=e$. Defining the transverse projector $P_{\perp }^{ij}={\delta }^{ij}-e^i{e}^j$, the first-order geodesic equation becomesIntegrating with the reception position and velocity gives the first-order photon trajectory in scalar perturbations:Its first derivative at reception is $e^i+2e^i{\Psi }_0$, and differentiating twice gives the previous equation. For a first-order calculation, evaluating the integrals on the unperturbed ray is sufficient; shifting their evaluation points by the first-order displacement changes them only at second order. This is the Born approximation in cosmological lensing.

To fix the angular-deflection sign, define ${\chi }_s={\eta }_0-{\eta }_s>0$, $n_{\mathrm{obs}}=-e$, and $n_{\mathrm{src}}=x_s/|x_s|$. The latter is the unlensed coordinate direction to the source, while the former is its apparent direction measured by the observer. The longitudinal integral changes the radial distance, not the direction at this order. The transverse displacement isDividing by ${\chi }_s$ yieldsThis is the angular deflection kernel for cosmological lensing. It depends on the sum of the two metric potentials; setting them equal reduces it to the familiar twice-the-Newtonian-potential expression. With angular derivatives, the lensing potential is $2{\int }_0^{{\chi }_s}[({\chi }_s-\chi )/({\chi }_s\chi )]\Psi d\chi$, and its angular gradient is $\alpha$.

Gravitational lensing displaces apparent source positions and produces magnification and shear through angular derivatives of the deflection. Weak gravitational lensing of galaxy shapes probes the foreground mass distribution, including dark matter. Lensing also remaps the cosmic microwave background, smoothing its acoustic features and converting part of its E-mode polarization into B modes. Strong deflections can produce multiple images, though a single first-order ray calculation does not describe that regime completely.

If the gas can cool appreciably below the virial temperature, radiative cooling removes thermal energy and pressure support. In a dark matter halo the gas then contracts, dissipating more energy as it falls. Efficient condensation requires the radiative gas cooling time to be short enough compared with the relevant dynamical or assembly time; merely having an available low-temperature transition does not guarantee that the gas reaches it quickly.

The collisionless dark matter cannot lose comparable energy through radiation and remains extended. Gas with appreciable conserved angular momentum stops radial collapse when rotation supports it, often forming a disk; lower-angular-momentum gas reaches a more compact central region. Cold dense gas can fragment into self-gravitating clouds and form stars if its gravitational instability overcomes remaining support. Stellar feedback subsequently reheats or expels gas and regulates the conversion. Efficient cooling enables central baryonic condensation and star formation; angular momentum and feedback determine the resulting galaxy.

If gas cannot radiate enough energy to fall below the virial temperature, infall converts gravitational energy into heat through shocks and compression. Thermal pressure can support an extended atmosphere in the dark matter halo. It need not have the same density profile as the collisionless dark matter, because its entropy and pressure matter.

A useful quantitative comparison is the radiative gas cooling time $t_{\mathrm{cool}}\sim (3/2)n{k}_{B}T/(n_e{n}_i\Lambda )$ against the halo dynamical time $t_{\mathrm{dyn}}\sim r_{\mathrm{vir}}/V_{\mathrm{vir}}$. If cooling remains slow or a heating source balances it, the gas stays predominantly hot and diffuse, rather than forming a compact, cold, self-gravitating stellar system. Without sufficient cooling, most baryons remain pressure-supported halo gas. Very slow cooling can still feed gradual central condensation; the condition is about energy loss relative to the evolution time, not an absolute prohibition on any inward motion.

Let $\delta =(\rho -\bar{\rho })/\bar{\rho }$ and define the cosmological density power spectrum by $⟨{\delta }_{\mathbf{k}}{\delta }_{{\mathbf{k}}^{\prime }}^{\ast }⟩=(2\pi {)}^3{\delta }_{\mathrm{D}}(\mathbf{k}-{\mathbf{k}}^{\prime })P(k)$. The contribution per logarithmic wave-number interval is the dimensionless cosmological power spectrum ${\Delta }^2(k)=k^{3}P(k)/(2{\pi }^2)$. The linear cosmological mass variance on mass scale $M$ iswith $R$ a comoving smoothing radius and $W$ the top-hat filter in Fourier space. On halo scales the observed spectrum is consistent with greater variance at smaller masses. Growth therefore brings smaller objects to the collapse threshold earlier, statistically; larger structures assemble by accretion and dark-matter halo mergers. This statistical growth from smaller bound systems to larger ones is hierarchical galaxy formation. It is an ordering of dark-matter assembly, not a rule that every small visible galaxy must precede every large visible galaxy.