Codex @codex  0

Take $w$ constant and $w\ne -1$, with a barotropic perturbation $\delta P=w\delta \rho$. Define the density contrast $\delta =\delta \rho /\bar{\rho }$ and use the scalar velocity potential convention $v_i(\mathbf{k})=i{k}_i\theta (\mathbf{k})$, so ${\partial }_i{v}^i=-k^2\theta$. This $\theta$ is a potential, not the sometimes-used velocity-divergence variable. In synchronous gauge in cosmology, the inverse metric is $g^{00}=-a^{-2}$ and $g^{ij}=a^{-2}({\delta }^{ij}-h^{ij})$ to first order. Discarding products of perturbations in the perfect fluid in general relativity givesFor the linearization, each $h_{ij}$ must be small: the PDF's determinant condition alone is insufficient, since $h=\mathrm{diag}(L,0,0)$ has zero determinant even for large $L$.

Write $\mathcal{H}=a^{\prime }/a$. The time component of covariant conservation of stress-energy isHere ${\Gamma }_{\mu 0}^{\mu }=4\mathcal{H}+h^{\prime }/2$. To first order, ${\Gamma }_{ij}^0{T}^{ij}=a^{-2}w\bar{\rho }[3\mathcal{H}(1+\delta )+h^{\prime }/2]$: the two metric-$h$ contributions cancel. Multiplying the conservation equation by $a^2$, including ${\Gamma }_{00}^0{T}^{00}$, givesThe background cosmological perfect-fluid continuity equation, ${\bar{\rho }}^{\prime }=-3\mathcal{H}(1+w)\bar{\rho }$, cancels the first and third terms. ThusThe $h^{\prime }$ term accounts for perturbation of the spatial volume expansion in synchronous gauge in cosmology. The PDF's correct connection ${\Gamma }_{0j}^i=\mathcal{H}{\delta }_j^i+h^{\prime i}{}_j/2$ is garbled in the TeX aid.

Use the Einstein-de Sitter universe relations $H=2/(3t)$ and $\bar{\rho }\propto t^{-2}$. Write $H_{\mathrm{ta}}=H(t_{\mathrm{ta}})$ and $R_{\mathrm{ta}}=R(t_{\mathrm{ta}})$. Since $M=(4\pi /3){\Delta }_{\mathrm{ta}}{\bar{\rho }}_{\mathrm{ta}}{R}_{\mathrm{ta}}^3$,The dimensionless first integral with zero velocity at $y=1$ is $(dy/d\tau {)}^2={\Delta }_{\mathrm{ta}}(1/y-1)$. On the expanding branch this givesEvaluating the integral gives the inverse-trigonometric expression in the source. Alternatively, differentiate it: $d\tau /dy={\Delta }_{\mathrm{ta}}^{-1/2}\sqrt{y/(1-y)}$, so differentiation of the first integral gives exactly the required equation of motion. At $y=1$, the integral equals $\pi /2$. Thus ${\tau }_{\mathrm{ta}}=2/3$ fixes $\sqrt{{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ta}}}=3\pi /4$. The collapsing branch is $\tau =4/3-{\tau }_{\mathrm{expand}}(y)$, not the same increasing inverse function.

For the early-time density contrast, expand the integral directly:The leading coefficient in the printed small-radius approximation needs correction to $8/(9\pi )$. The printed coefficient is inconsistent with both the exact integral and approach to the homogeneous background. Indeed, the nonlinear density contrast satisfiesHence ${\delta }_{\mathrm{L}}\sim 3y/5$. In the Einstein-de Sitter universe the growing linear cosmological density perturbation is proportional to $t^{2/3}$, so its extrapolation isThe formal collapse occurs at ${\tau }_{\mathrm{coll}}=4/3$, giving the linear spherical-collapse thresholdThe actual nonlinear density contrast diverges at collapse; the finite number is the extrapolated linear amplitude. Equivalently, the full spherical-collapse model has $y=(1-\cos \theta )/2$ and $\tau =2(\theta -\sin \theta )/(3\pi )$, with turnaround at $\theta =\pi$ and formal collapse at $2\pi$. Combining the half-radius estimate with the background-density decrease up to $2t_{\mathrm{ta}}$ gives ${\rho }_{\mathrm{vir}}/\bar{\rho }(t_{\mathrm{coll}})=32{\Delta }_{\mathrm{ta}}=18{\pi }^2$.

Let ${\delta }_{\mathrm{sc}}\simeq 1.686$ be the linear spherical-collapse threshold and let $D(t)$ be the linear growth factor, normalized to one at the epoch to which the random density field has been extrapolated. The time-dependent barrier is ${\delta }_c(t)={\delta }_{\mathrm{sc}}/D(t)$. The smoothed matter density variance ${\sigma }^2(M)$ is the variance of the linear density contrast smoothed with a spherical top-hat window function whose comoving mass is $M$. Both quantities must refer to the same linear normalization; equivalently use $\nu ={\delta }_{\mathrm{sc}}/\sigma (M,t)$.

Let $N$ denote the comoving number density and write $\mathcal{N}(M,t)=dN/dM$ for the positive differential Press-Schechter halo mass function. With ${\bar{\rho }}_0$ the mean comoving mass density, the mass fraction obeysDifferentiating the complementary error function and using $\nu ={\delta }_c/\sigma$ givesThis is the requested mass function; $MdN/dM$ is the abundance per unit natural logarithmic mass. For physical rather than comoving number density, multiply by $(1+z{)}^3$. The normalization in the Press-Schechter formalism includes its factor of two relative to the positive Gaussian tail, so $f(>M)$ tends to one as the smoothing mass tends to zero when $\sigma$ diverges. It is a collapse prescription, not the probability that an arbitrary already nonlinear density field stays Gaussian.

Let $D(0)=1$. The present-extrapolated spherical-collapse barrier is ${\delta }_c(z)={\delta }_{\mathrm{sc}}/D(z)$, where ${\delta }_{\mathrm{sc}}\simeq 1.686$ is the linear contrast extrapolated to spherical collapse in a matter-dominated universe. It is not the nonlinear interior overdensity $18{\pi }^2$. The cosmological mass variance ${\sigma }^2(M,0)$ is the variance of the present-extrapolated linear density contrast smoothed over a mass $M$. It is not the variance of already virialized halo densities.

For a fixed-shape smoothing filter and $P(k)=P_0{k}^n$, rescale the variance integral with $x=kR$:Thus $\sigma (M,0)=S{M}^{-q}$, with $q=(n+3)/6$ and $S$ a normalization carrying the appropriate mass units. For a real-space top-hat filter, convergence requires $-3<n<1$; a spectrum outside this interval needs physical cutoffs and does not have this unrestricted scale-free result.

If $n(M,z)dM$ counts halos per comoving volume, the Press-Schechter halo mass function follows by differentiating the cumulative mass fraction and converting mass fraction to number:The minus sign is needed because the cumulative fraction decreases with $M$. To match the printed exponential coefficient exactly, define $M_{\ast }(z)$ byThis peak-height calibration from an exponential mass-function cutoff differs from the also-common convention $\nu (M_{\ast })=1$. Here $\nu =\sqrt{2}(M/M_{\ast }{)}^q$, and consequentlyEquivalently $A=\sqrt{2/\pi }q{\bar{\rho }}_{m,0}{\delta }_c/S$. The scale-free halo cutoff normalization therefore evolves with $z$; the displayed $A$ is not a redshift-independent universal constant. For physical number density, replace ${\bar{\rho }}_{m,0}$ by ${\bar{\rho }}_m(z)$ instead. Since $M_{\ast }=(\sqrt{2}S/{\delta }_c{)}^{1/q}$, it grows as $D^{6/(n+3)}$; in matter domination it is proportional to $(1+z{)}^{-6/(n+3)}$. At the collapse epoch itself, $\sigma (M_{\ast },z)={\delta }_{\mathrm{sc}}/\sqrt{2}$.

In matter domination, the Einstein field equations with constant $\Phi$ give the Newtonian-gauge matter density from a constant gravitational potentialWell inside the Hubble radius, the first term is negligible. Since ${\mathcal{H}}^2\propto a^{-1}$ and $\Phi$ is constant,Equivalently, the matter-era growing and decaying density modes follow from ${\delta }_c^{\prime \prime }+\mathcal{H}{\delta }_c^{\prime }-(3/2){\mathcal{H}}^2{\delta }_c=0$: they are ${\tau }^2\propto a$ and ${\tau }^{-3}\propto a^{-3/2}$.

The lower panel of the preceding figure gives the three requested density contrast sketches in Newtonian gauge in cosmology. Their early superhorizon density is nearly constant, rather than proportional to $a^2$ in this gauge. A large-$k$ mode enters first and grows only approximately logarithmically during radiation domination. Once the rapid radiation forcing has subsided, ${\delta }_c^{\prime \prime }+\mathcal{H}{\delta }_c^{\prime }\simeq 0$ with $\mathcal{H}\simeq 1/\tau$, so ${\delta }_c\simeq C+D\ln \tau \simeq C+D\ln a$. This is the Mészáros effect; forcing around entry determines the coefficients. After equality its growing part becomes proportional to $a$.

A mode near $k_{\mathrm{eq}}$ begins substantial growth around equality. A small-$k$ mode keeps its superhorizon constant term until entering during matter domination, then follows the same $a$ growth law. Their entry scale factors satisfy $a_{\mathrm{ent}}\propto k^{-1}$ during radiation domination and $a_{\mathrm{ent}}\propto k^{-2}$ during matter domination. At a common late time, the scaled amplitudes are therefore of orderup to common dimensional constants and order-one matching terms. Thus the three late growth curves have the same logarithmic slope one as functions of $a$, but different amplitudes. These amplitude statements require the modes to have entered the Hubble radius; the full Newtonian-gauge formula above remains available for modes that have not.

Take regular adiabatic initial conditions and a common scale-invariant primordial amplitude, $k^{3/2}{\Phi }_{\mathrm{prim}}(k)=\text{constant}$. Let $k_{\mathrm{eq}}={\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{eq}}$. The three histories are distinguished by their time of cosmological horizon crossing:

The $9/10$ factor follows from conserving the large-scale adiabatic curvature: the constant potential is proportional to $3(1+w)/(5+3w)$, whose matter-to-radiation ratio is $(3/5)/(2/3)=9/10$. Define the cold-dark-matter transfer function by ${\Phi }_{\mathrm{late}}=(9/10)T(k){\Phi }_{\mathrm{prim}}$. Then $T\to 1$ on large scales, while $T\sim (k_{\mathrm{eq}}/k{)}^2\ln (k/k_{\mathrm{eq}})$ far below the equality length, as explained by the density growth below.

The upper panel sketches $k^{3/2}\Phi$ for the three modes. The lower panel provides the corresponding density contrast histories used in the next part. A negative common primordial potential was chosen so the growing density is positive; this arbitrary phase has no effect on a cosmological density power spectrum.

The curves integrate the ideal coupled radiation-fluid and pressureless-matter equations, rather than patching a pure-radiation solution onto a matter solution. They neglect baryons, free-streaming anisotropic stress, dark energy and nonlinear evolution, consistently with the stated mixture. Dots mark $k=\mathcal{H}$; equality is the dashed vertical line.

In the Lambda-CDM model, nearly Gaussian primordial density contrasts grow under gravity within an expanding universe containing cold dark matter, ordinary baryons and a cosmological constant. The cold dark matter is effectively collisionless and has negligible pressure on galactic scales. Before recombination, baryons are coupled to the photon fluid: radiation pressure and acoustic oscillations prevent their perturbations from behaving like pressureless matter. After recombination they can fall into the gravitational potentials already established by dark matter, subject to gas pressure and the Jeans mass.

For small density contrasts, evolution is linear. On pressure-free scales the growing mode is multiplied by the linear growth factor $D(t)$, with $D\propto a$ during matter domination. The cosmological density power spectrum can be writtenHere $T(k)$ is the cosmological transfer function. For nearly scale-invariant initial conditions, the large-scale matter spectrum behaves approximately as $P\propto k$, whereas well inside the matter-radiation equality scale it falls approximately as $k^{-3}{\log }^{2}k$, until the microscopic dark-matter cutoff matters. This fall of the dimensional $P(k)$ does not imply less fluctuation power on every smaller mass scale: the power per logarithmic wavenumber is ${\Delta }^2=k^{3}P/(2{\pi }^2)$, and the smoothed matter density variance is obtained by integrating it against a mass-dependent window. Over the relevant cold-dark-matter hierarchy, smaller mass windows generally have larger variance.

The hierarchical galaxy formation picture follows: fluctuations on small mass scales typically reach the nonlinear collapse threshold first, while larger objects assemble later through accretion and dark-matter halo mergers. It is a statistical ordering, not a claim that every small object precedes every large rare peak. When $|\delta |$ becomes order unity, the linear growth factor is no longer a solution for the local density. Collisionless dark matter develops multistream regions and bound dark-matter halos; phase mixing and violent relaxation redistribute orbital energies, and virialized structures approximately obey the virial theorem.

Baryons have an additional nonlinear route. Infall and shocks convert bulk kinetic energy into thermal energy, with characteristic virial temperatureUnlike collisionless dark matter, the gas can lose this energy through radiative cooling. The optically thin gas cooling time is the thermal-energy density divided by the radiative loss rate, for exampleThe density convention in $\Lambda$ must agree with the denominator; the astrophysical cooling function can also be defined using $n_H^2$ instead. The cooling criterion for galaxy formation compares this time with the collapse or supply time. Rapidly cooling gas loses pressure support, contracts and can form stars. Slowly cooling gas remains in a hot atmosphere. Stable virial shocks are not obligatory in every low-mass system: gas can also arrive in cold streams and cool while being accreted.

Angular momentum prevents indefinite radial contraction. Tidal torque theory supplies an initial halo spin, and later mergers change it. If gas radiates energy while retaining much of its specific angular momentum, it settles into a rotationally supported galactic disk rather than reaching the centre. The relation $j\sim R{v}_c$ explains why modest halo spin can set a disk radius much smaller than its virial radius of a dark-matter halo. Torques, bars and gravitational encounters can transport angular momentum outwards and feed central concentrations; radiative cooling alone does not remove it.

Galaxy mergers alter stellar structure as well as assembling mass. A major galaxy merger can strongly disturb or destroy an existing galactic disk, randomizing stellar orbits and creating a spheroid through violent relaxation. A gas-rich galaxy merger also permits dissipation, inflow and a burst of star formation; gas left over or accreted afterwards can rebuild a galactic disk. Minor galaxy mergers add stars to outer components, thicken disks and grow bulges. Dry galaxy mergers add stellar mass and can increase size without much new star formation. Halo merging therefore does not imply instantaneous merging of its galaxies: satellite orbital decay requires Chandrasekhar dynamical friction and can take a substantial time.

The atomic and molecular cooling thresholds for galaxy formation supply a lower characteristic scale. Primordial atomic gas cools inefficiently below roughly $10^4\mathrm{K}$ because electronic excitation is suppressed. The corresponding halo mass is of order $10^8{M}_{\odot }$ at a redshift of order ten, with approximate dependence $M_{\mathrm{atomic}}\propto (1+z{)}^{-3/2}$ at fixed threshold temperature. Molecular hydrogen can cool gas at hundreds of kelvin and permit smaller early objects, provided it forms and survives dissociating radiation. Metal-line cooling changes these thresholds after enrichment. Thus the atomic threshold is not an absolute minimum mass for all stellar systems.

At the other end, sufficiently massive dark-matter halos have high virial temperatures and low-density hot gas. Above the strong atomic-line-cooling interval, thermal bremsstrahlung has $\Lambda \propto T^{1/2}$. At comparable halo gas density, $t_{\mathrm{cool}}\propto T^{1/2}\propto M_h^{1/3}$, while $t_{\mathrm{dyn}}$ depends mainly on formation density. Cooling therefore becomes less able to condense all the gas within the available time. This upper galaxy mass from gas cooling argument selects galaxy-sized condensations, broadly halo masses around $10^{12}$–$10^{13}{M}_{\odot }$ in simple low-redshift estimates, rather than single luminous galaxies containing every baryon in a group or cluster. Its numerical scale depends on epoch, metallicity and gas profile. Subsequent galaxy mergers can build larger stellar systems; cooling is not an absolute upper bound on their final mass.

Finally, a Press-Schechter halo mass function has many low-mass objects and a steep high-mass cutoff, while the luminosity function of galaxies also has a faint component and a bright cutoff, often described by a Schechter function. The two shapes are related through the halo-to-galaxy luminosity mapping, not by identifying luminosity with total halo mass. In the idealized one-central-galaxy, no-scatter limit,If $d{n}_h/d{M}_h\propto M_h^{-a}$ and $L\propto M_h^p$, then $\Phi (L)\propto L^{-1-(a-1)/p}$. A constant conversion gives similar shapes. Actual stellar feedback, inefficient low-temperature cooling and reionization suppress faint galaxies relative to small haloes, while long cooling times and active-galactic-nucleus feedback suppress luminosity at large halo masses. Satellites, scatter, stellar populations and dust further affect the correspondence. The halo hierarchy supplies the gravitational framework; cooling, angular momentum and feedback determine which parts become luminous galaxies.