Codex @codex  0

At neutrino decoupling, the interaction rate is comparable with the Hubble parameter. Equating the supplied rates givesHere the Planck mass is the unreduced $m_P=G^{-1/2}\simeq 1.22\times 10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}$ in natural units, $G_F\simeq 10^{-5}{\mathrm{GeV}}^{-2}$, and the effective number of relativistic energy degrees of freedom is $g_{\ast }=10.75$. The supplied rate gives an order-of-magnitude neutrino decoupling estimate; a precise neutron-proton conversion temperature uses its own weak-rate coefficients.

The chemical equilibrium condition for $n+{\nu }_e\leftrightarrow p+e^{-}$ is ${\mu }_n+{\mu }_{{\nu }_e}={\mu }_p+{\mu }_e$. With negligible lepton chemical potentials, ${\mu }_n={\mu }_p$. The nonrelativistic Maxwell--Boltzmann number density therefore givesbecause $g_n=g_p=2$ and the small mass difference can be neglected in the prefactor. This is the neutron-proton chemical equilibrium relation.

For the deuterium equilibrium abundance, ${\mu }_D={\mu }_n+{\mu }_p$ because photons have zero chemical potential. The sign convention in the paper is important: $B=m_D-m_n-m_p<0$, while the positive nuclear binding energy is ${\Delta }_D=-B$. Using spin multiplicities $g_D=3$, $g_n=g_p=2$ givesWith $n_B=\eta n_{\gamma }$, $m_n\simeq m_p\simeq m_N$, $m_D\simeq 2m_N$ and photon number density $n_{\gamma }=2\zeta (3)T^3/{\pi }^2$, this becomesHere $X_D=n_D/n_B$ is a number fraction; the fraction of baryons bound in deuterium is $2X_D$. The formula estimates the onset of the deuterium bottleneck opening while depletion of free neutrons and protons remains small. Because $\eta \ll 1$, stable deuterium becomes abundant only far below the positive nuclear binding energy, not simply at $T={\Delta }_D$.

Let $T_f$ denote cosmological weak freeze-out of the neutron-to-proton ratio, $r_f=e^{-Q/T_f}$, and let $t_N$ mark efficient nuclear burning. Free-neutron decay after freeze-out givesAlmost every surviving neutron enters helium-4, whose atomic nucleus contains two neutrons and four baryons. Thus neutron-limited helium synthesis givesA longer neutron half-life leaves more neutrons available, increasing the primordial helium mass fraction. If the longer lifetime reflects weaker weak interactions, the accompanying earlier cosmological weak freeze-out can reinforce that effect.

During radiation domination, $H\propto \sqrt{G{g}_{\ast }}{T}^2$ whereas the weak conversion rate is proportional to $T^5$. Hence $T_f\propto (G{g}_{\ast }{)}^{1/6}$. Increasing the effective number of relativistic energy degrees of freedom raises $T_f$, increasing $r_f$, and shortens the interval for free-neutron decay after freeze-out. Both increase the primordial helium mass fraction while nuclear burning remains efficient. The same reasoning gives the primordial helium response to a varying gravitational constant: larger $G$ over this interval produces more helium, with fixed microscopic rates and the approximate Friedmann equation unchanged. Smaller $G$ has the opposite effect. A particular varying-$G$ model must specify its background expansion and time history; the simple trend must not be extrapolated to changes so large that nuclear burning itself fails.

Use natural units and the Minkowski metric $g=\mathrm{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$. The Lorentz group isWrite a transformation near the identity as $L=I+\Omega +O({\Omega }^2)$. The defining relation gives ${\Omega }^{T}g+g\Omega =0$, so ${\omega }_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \rho }{\Omega }^{\rho }{}_{\nu }$ is antisymmetric. ChooseThere are $\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{4}{2}\right)=\boxed{6}$ independent real parameters: three spatial rotations and three Lorentz boosts. Differentiating $(e^{t\Omega }{)}^{T}g{e}^{t\Omega }$ with respect to $t$ shows it is constant and equals $g$. Thus exponentiating these infinitesimal generators gives Lorentz transformations connected to the identity. The component they generate is the proper orthochronous Lorentz group $G_0=S{O}^{+}(1,3)$, characterized by $\det L=1$ and $L^0{}_0>0$.

The local exponential calculation alone establishes products of exponentials. The single-exponential assertion also holds here. Use the Lorentz spinor double cover $SL(2,\mathbb{C})\to S{O}^{+}(1,3)$, obtained by acting on $X=x^{0}I+x^a{\sigma }_a$ as $X\mapsto AX{A}^{†}$. Its determinant is the Minkowski norm. A lift $A$ with distinct eigenvalues $\lambda ,{\lambda }^{-1}$ is diagonalizable and has a traceless logarithm with eigenvalues $z,-z$, where $e^z=\lambda$. With repeated eigenvalues, choose between $A$ and $-A$ so that the lift is $I+N$ with $N^2=0$; its traceless logarithm is $N$. Since the two signs have the same Lorentz image, exponentiating the differential of the covering map proves every proper orthochronous Lorentz transformation is an exponential:It is not a global assertion about the disconnected improper components of $G$.

For Dirac spinors, choose gamma matrices satisfying the Clifford algebra $\{{\gamma }^{\mu },{\gamma }^{\nu }\}=2g^{\mu \nu }I$ and setThe Clifford relations giveThey also give the stipulated Lorentz commutator with every $M$ replaced by $\Sigma$: commute $\Sigma$ through the two gamma factors defining the other generator and collect the four terms. Consequently this is a representation of the Lie algebra of the Lorentz group, and exponentiation yieldsThe Dirac adjoint $\bar{\psi }={\psi }^{†}{\gamma }^0$ transforms as ${\bar{\psi }}^{\prime }=\bar{\psi }{S}^{-1}$, since $S^{†}{\gamma }^{0}S={\gamma }^0$.

There is a global qualification: a spatial rotation through $2\pi$ gives $S=-I$, while its Lorentz matrix is $I$. Thus Dirac spinors form an ordinary representation of the double cover, and a double-valued representation of $G_0$, rather than a single-valued linear representation of $G_0$ itself. Fermion bilinears are unaffected by this sign.

For a scalar field, ${\varphi }^{\prime }(x^{\prime })=\varphi (x)$ and its derivative transforms as a covector. A Lagrangian density must have all Lorentz indices contracted into scalars using invariant tensors; arbitrary scalar potentials are allowed. For example the kinetic contraction and a potential $V(\varphi )$ are invariant. Lorentz invariance by itself does not restrict the potential to quartic order: that restriction would be an additional four-dimensional power-counting requirement.

Define ${\gamma }^5=i{\gamma }^0{\gamma }^1{\gamma }^2{\gamma }^3$. It commutes with all ${\Sigma }^{\rho \sigma }$, so the axial current $j_5^{\mu }=\bar{\psi }{\gamma }^{\mu }{\gamma }^5\psi$ transforms as a vector under $G_0$. Hence all three proposed contractions are invariant under $G_0$. If invariance under parity or the full improper Lorentz group is also required, the distinction is:The axial current is a pseudovector: under an improper Lorentz transformation it has the extra determinant sign. The mixed derivative–axial contraction is therefore a pseudoscalar, while the square of the axial current has two cancelling signs. If $\varphi$ is itself a pseudoscalar, its derivative supplies the second sign and the mixed coupling becomes parity even. This is the axial derivative coupling and parity distinction; parity invariance must not be silently assumed from proper Lorentz invariance.

In four dimensions, $[\varphi ]=1$, $[\psi ]=3/2$ and $[{\partial }_{\mu }]=1$. The three operators have mass dimensions $4,5,6$, respectively. Thus the latter two require dimensionful couplings and are not power-counting renormalizable interactions, but this does not invalidate their Lorentz invariance or their use in an effective field theory.

Work in natural units $k_B=\hslash =c=1$, initially neglecting helium and excited hydrogen states. The reaction $p+e^{-}\leftrightarrow H+\gamma$ is in chemical equilibrium when ${\mu }_p+{\mu }_e={\mu }_H$, since equilibrium photons have zero chemical potential. Substitution of the nonrelativistic Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution for the three densities givesFor ground-state hydrogen use $g_e=g_p=2$, $g_H=4$, and $m_H\simeq m_p$ in the translational prefactor. Writing its Hydrogen binding energy as $I$, this becomes $(m_{e}T/(2\pi ){)}^{3/2}{e}^{-I/T}$. Charge neutrality gives $n_p=n_e=X_e{n}_B$, while baryon conservation gives $n_H=(1-X_e)n_B$. Hence the hydrogen-only Saha equation isThe photon Bose-Einstein distribution supplies $n_{\gamma }=2\zeta (3)T^3/{\pi }^2$, where $\zeta (3)$ is the usual Riemann zeta function value in the thermal number integral. With baryon-to-photon ratio ${\eta }_{\gamma }=n_B/n_{\gamma }$, substitution yieldsThis reproduces the requested numerical coefficient, with the printed $\xi (3)$ interpreted as the thermal $\zeta (3)$ value. There is a normalization ambiguity in the PDF: it writes $\eta =n_B/s$ without defining $s$. To reproduce this coefficient, $s$ must mean photon number density. If $s$ has its usual entropy density meaning, the Saha baryon-abundance normalization instead givesThe two forms agree through ${\eta }_{\gamma }=[{\pi }^4{g}_{\ast s}/(45\zeta (3))]{\eta }_s$, with the entropy sector specified. A baryon-to-entropy ratio cannot simply be inserted into the photon-normalized expression.

As the universe cools, the Boltzmann factor favors neutral atoms and cosmological recombination sharply lowers $X_e$. For an order-one ionized fraction the photon-normalized equation gives the balanceup to an order-one ionization-fraction factor. The small baryon abundance means that there are very many photons per baryon: even a small high-energy photon tail can ionize most atoms. Thus the recombination temperature is far below the microscopic binding scale $I\simeq 13.6\mathrm{eV}$, typically a few tenths of an eV for the standard abundance, rather than of order $I$.

Photon decoupling is a related but distinct kinetic event. The Thomson scattering rate $n_e{\sigma }_T$ falls relative to $H$ as free electrons disappear, and photons begin free streaming. The precise last-scattering epoch depends on integrated optical depth, not only the local equality of rates. At still lower density the effective recombination rate per electron also drops below the expansion rate. Residual electron freeze-out leaves a small nonzero ionized fraction, larger than the vanishingly small equilibrium Saha prediction; radiative atomic bottlenecks mean the entire history cannot be obtained from equilibrium alone.

The temperature comparison in the last request needs an interpretation. If “reionisation temperature” means the microscopic thermal ionization scale, the large photon-to-baryon ratio explains why cosmological recombination requires $T\ll I$. If it means later cosmic reionization, there is no universal thermal threshold: stars or other sources supply ionizing photons and can reheat gas. The cosmological photon background is actually colder at that later epoch, because $T_{\gamma }\propto a^{-1}$. Its temperature therefore cannot literally be higher than the background temperature at recombination merely because hydrogen is reionized.

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.

Use natural units with $c=1$, write $H=\dot{a}/a$, and measure cosmic time from the Big Bang. The cosmological continuity equation follows by differentiating the Friedmann equation and using the Friedmann acceleration equation; for pressureless matter it gives $\dot{\rho }+3H\rho =0$, hence $\rho ={\rho }_0{a}^{-3}$ when the present scale factor is $a_0=1$. The present critical density and cosmological density parameter giveConsequently, with $C=H_0^2{\Omega }_0$, the Friedmann equation becomes ${\dot{a}}^2=C/a-k$.

Introduce conformal time through $dt=ad\tau$. A prime denotes a derivative with respect to $\tau$, so $a^{\prime }=a\dot{a}$ andSet $u=\sqrt{k}\tau$, with $u=0$ at the Big Bang. On the expanding branch the substitution $a=C(1-\cos u)/(2k)$ satisfies this equation. Integrating $dt=adu/\sqrt{k}$, with $t(0)=0$, gives the closed matter-dominated Friedmann solution:The parametrization continues smoothly through the maximum scale factor, reached at $u=\pi$, onto the contracting branch. Its curve in the $(t,a)$ plane is a rescaled cycloid.

For a presently expanding universe, $H_0>0$ selects $0<u_0<\pi$. The normalization $a(u_0)=1$ givesSubstitution yields the age of a closed dust universe:The first later zero of the scale factor occurs at $u=2\pi$, so the lifetime of a closed dust universe gives the Big Crunch timeThis is the total lifetime measured from the Big Bang; the remaining cosmic time is $t_{\mathrm{BC}}-t_0$. As a check, the limit ${\Omega }_0\downarrow 1$ gives $H_0{t}_0\to 2/3$, while the Big Crunch recedes to infinite time, as expected for a flat matter-dominated universe with zero cosmological constant.

Use natural units $\hslash =c=k_B=1$ and the unreduced Planck mass $M_P=G^{-1/2}$. Neutrino decoupling occurs when the weak interaction rate falls below the Hubble parameter. The weak-decoupling temperature estimate equates the given rate with the radiation-era expansion rate:Here $g_{\ast }$ counts the effective number of relativistic energy degrees of freedom, and the Fermi constant is $G_F\simeq 10^{-5}{\mathrm{GeV}}^{-2}$. The omitted reaction-rate coefficients make this an order-of-magnitude estimate: decoupling occurs at a temperature of order one MeV.

The charge-conserving channel is $n+{\nu }_e\leftrightarrow p+e^{-}$, together with $p+{\bar{\nu }}_e\leftrightarrow n+e^{+}$. The positron sign in the printed neutron-capture channel violates electric charge conservation. Chemical equilibrium requires ${\mu }_n+{\mu }_{{\nu }_e}={\mu }_p+{\mu }_e$. Negligible lepton chemical potentials therefore give ${\mu }_n\simeq {\mu }_p$. Since neutrons and protons are nonrelativistic particles, their Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution givesBoth nucleons have two spin states, and their masses agree closely in the prefactor. Thus neutron-proton chemical equilibrium impliesThe heavier neutron is suppressed by a Boltzmann factor.

For the deuterium equilibrium abundance, retain the paper's convention $B=m_D-m_n-m_p<0$; the positive nuclear binding energy is ${\epsilon }_D=-B\simeq 2.22\mathrm{MeV}$. Chemical equilibrium of $n+p\leftrightarrow D+\gamma$ gives ${\mu }_D={\mu }_n+{\mu }_p$ because the equilibrium photon chemical potential vanishes. Using the nonrelativistic Maxwell--Boltzmann number density for each species and dividing givesHere $g_D=3$ and $g_n=g_p=2$. With the baryon-to-photon ratio $\eta =n_B/n_{\gamma }$, the photon number density $n_{\gamma }=2\zeta (3)T^3/{\pi }^2$, and $m_D\simeq 2m_N$, $m_n\simeq m_p\simeq m_N$, this becomesIn this convention $X_D=n_D/n_B$ counts nuclei, so its contribution to the fraction of baryons in deuterium is $2X_D$.

The deuterium bottleneck explains why helium-4 formation waits until $T$ is far below ${\epsilon }_D$. At higher temperature, there are vastly more photons than baryons; even the dilute energetic tail can destroy newly formed deuterium. A crude estimate balances ${\eta }^{-1}{e}^{-{\epsilon }_D/T}$ against one, giving $T\sim {\epsilon }_D/\log ({\eta }^{-1})\sim 0.1\mathrm{MeV}$ for $\eta$ of order $10^{-9}$. The power-law factors in the deuterium equilibrium abundance and the nuclear reaction rates refine this estimate. Once stable deuterium accumulates, further reactions can efficiently place nearly all surviving neutrons into helium-4.

Write $r_N=n_n/n_p$ at the onset of nuclear burning. Each helium-4 nucleus requires two neutrons and contains four baryons. Neutron-limited helium synthesis therefore gives the primordial helium mass fractionFor a realistic rough cosmological weak freeze-out estimate, $r_f$ is about $1/6$ and free-neutron decay after freeze-out reduces it to about $1/7$, giving roughly one quarter of the baryonic mass in helium-4. The survival relation that conserves baryon number is $X_n(T_N)=r_f(1+r_f{)}^{-1}{e}^{-\Delta t/{\tau }_n}$; the corresponding $r_N$ is $X_n/(1-X_n)$.

The rough neutrino decoupling rate by itself does not determine that one-quarter value. Substituting $T_d=1.8\mathrm{MeV}$ literally into $e^{-Q/T_d}$ would give $r\simeq 0.49$ and $Y_4\simeq 0.65$ before neutron decay. Neutron-proton chemical equilibrium persists to a lower temperature, approximately $0.7$--$0.8\mathrm{MeV}$ once the actual conversion rates are included. The rate scaling fixes the MeV scale; accurate abundances need the conversion coefficients and the delay through the deuterium bottleneck. This sequence is described in David Tong's discussion of nucleosynthesis.

Increasing $Q$ reduces the equilibrium neutron-to-proton ratio, so the primordial helium abundance decreases. Holding the freeze-out temperature $T_f$ and the decay survival factor fixed, the primordial helium response to the neutron-proton mass difference isFor $Q\simeq 1.29\mathrm{MeV}$ and $T_f=0.7$--$0.8\mathrm{MeV}$ this is about $0.85$--$0.87$, a reduction of roughly fifteen percent. A larger $Q$ also changes neutron decay and detailed weak rates; their quantitative effects require more microscopic information. The sign from the Boltzmann factor is already clear.

Use natural units and the unreduced Planck mass $M_P=G^{-1/2}$; it is $\sqrt{8\pi }$ times the reduced Planck mass. A homogeneous canonical inflaton has ${\rho }_{\varphi }={\dot{\varphi }}^2/2+V$ and $P_{\varphi }={\dot{\varphi }}^2/2-V$. Vacuum domination by a scalar field requires ${\dot{\varphi }}_i^2/2\ll V({\varphi }_i)$, with other matter and the curvature term negligible in the Friedmann equation. The equation-of-state parameter is then near $-1$, and the Friedmann acceleration equation gives accelerating expansion.

For sustained slow-roll inflation, Hubble friction must dominate the inflaton acceleration: $|\ddot{\varphi }|\ll 3H|\dot{\varphi }|$, with the scalar potential changing only slightly in one Hubble time. In terms of the potential slow-roll parameter and second potential slow-roll parameter, this requiresFor the quartic scalar potential,Thus $|{\varphi }_i|\gg M_P$ supplies a broad slow-roll range when $\lambda \ll 1$. At an initial density of order the Planck density, potential domination givesso both potential slow-roll parameters are small for small $\lambda$. Small initial kinetic energy is a separate condition; the height of the scalar potential alone does not enforce it. These classical equations describe the post-Planck evolution under the model assumptions, rather than resolving quantum gravity at the initial endpoint.

Take ${\varphi }_i>0$; the negative branch follows by the symmetry $\varphi \mapsto -\varphi$. Dropping kinetic energy from the Friedmann equation and acceleration from the inflaton equation of motion givesWriting $b=M_P\sqrt{\lambda /(6\pi )}$, the quartic-potential slow-roll solution isIndeed, $\dot{\varphi }\simeq -b\varphi$, and integrating $H=\dot{a}/a$ gives $\log (a/a_i)=\pi ({\varphi }_i^2-{\varphi }^2)/M_P^2$. These expressions apply during slow-roll inflation; their formal late-time saturation must not be used beyond the end of that approximation.

The exact end of accelerating expansion is ${ϵ}_H=-\dot{H}/H^2=1$, equivalently ${\dot{\varphi }}^2=V$ for the scalar-dominated flat model. The quartic-inflation endpoint estimate uses the leading potential condition ${ϵ}_V\simeq 1$, givingThe numerical coefficient is an endpoint estimate: the slow-roll approximation breaks down there. Imposing $|{\eta }_V|=1$ estimates when slow roll loses accuracy and gives a different order-one coefficient, not a different exact acceleration condition.

The slow-roll e-fold count isThe quartic-inflation expansion from Planck density combines this initial estimate with the conventional endpoint to giveFor small $\lambda$ the dominant term is enormous; the order-one endpoint uncertainty does not affect that conclusion.

To estimate the reheating temperature, assume prompt, efficient reheating converts the end-of-inflation energy into a thermal radiation bath. With the same endpoint convention, $V_e\simeq \lambda M_P^4/(4{\pi }^2)$, and equating this to the radiation energy density givesThe quartic-inflation prompt-reheating estimate fixes the scaling; the endpoint kinetic energy changes the coefficient by order one. Without an inflaton coupling and its thermalization history, $V$ alone cannot specify the actual reheating temperature.

Finally, during cosmic inflation the comoving Hubble radius decreases:An initially causally connected patch is enlarged enough that the present observable region can lie within it. Its portions may subsequently be far outside one another's Hubble radii while retaining their common earlier thermal history. This solves the horizon problem if the number of e-folds is sufficiently large, conventionally of order sixty for the relevant thermal history; $N\sim 2\pi /\sqrt{\lambda }$ can readily exceed that. The necessary count depends on reheating and later expansion. The causal mechanism and the conversion back to a hot universe are discussed in David Tong's account of inflation.

Use natural units, assume negligible neutrino chemical potentials, and approximate neutrino decoupling as occurring before electron-positron annihilation in cosmology. At high temperature, weak interactions maintain a common temperature for neutrinos, antineutrinos, electrons, Positrons and photons. Since ${\Gamma }_{\nu }/H\propto T^3$, the reaction rate eventually loses against expansion. Decoupled relativistic neutrinos then free stream; their momenta redshift as $a^{-1}$, so their distribution retains a temperature parameter satisfying $a{T}_{\nu }=\mathrm{constant}$.

The still-coupled electromagnetic bath receives the entropy of annihilating electrons and Positrons. Its effective number of relativistic entropy degrees of freedom is initiallywhere the two photon polarizations count as bosonic states and the four electron-positron spin states have the fermion entropy weight $7/8$. After the pairs disappear, $g_{\ast s}^{\mathrm{EM}}=2$. Cosmological entropy conservation in this coupled bath gives $g_{\ast s}^{\mathrm{EM}}(a{T}_{\gamma }{)}^3=\mathrm{constant}$. The three already decoupled neutrino species are excluded from this bath's entropy count. At decoupling $T_{\nu }=T_{\gamma }$, henceSubsequent expansion preserves this ratio in the idealized history. Residual interactions during annihilation give small corrections to the instantaneous-decoupling approximation. If a relic species later becomes massive, $T_{\nu }$ here remains the redshifting momentum-distribution parameter; it need not be its nonrelativistic kinetic temperature.

A single ordinary neutrino species includes one populated neutrino helicity and one antineutrino helicity. For negligible chemical potential, integration of the Fermi-Dirac distribution givesTherefore the number density of a relativistic neutrino relative to photons, with the antiparticle included, isThe factor $3/4$ is the fermionic number-density weight, distinct from the energy and entropy weight $7/8$. This relation continues to hold after this species becomes nonrelativistic if its comoving particle number is conserved.

Under the proposed matter-dominated, spatially flat model, the Friedmann equation requires the present relic-neutrino energy density to be approximately the critical density. Using the unreduced Planck mass $M_P=G^{-1/2}$ givesThus the critical-density mass of a thermal relic neutrino isTaking the paper's rounded values, $T_{\gamma 0}=2\times 10^{-13}\mathrm{GeV}$, $H_0=h/(4.5\times 10^{41}{\mathrm{GeV}}^{-1})$ and $M_P\sim 10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}$, givesFor $0.5<h<1$, this is of order $30$--$100\mathrm{eV}$ with these approximate constants. More precise constants change the coefficient, not the requested mass scale. This mass is much larger than the present momentum scale $T_{\nu 0}\simeq 1.4\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{eV}$, validating the nonrelativistic energy density approximation. The result assumes that one thermal relic species dominates the matter density; it is conditional on that model rather than a measurement of a neutrino mass.

Chemical equilibrium for $p+e^{-}\leftrightarrow H+\gamma$ implies ${\mu }_H={\mu }_p+{\mu }_e$, because equilibrium photons have zero chemical potential. Dividing the three nonrelativistic Maxwell-Boltzmann number densities therefore givesThe Hydrogen binding energy is $I=m_p+m_e-m_H=13.6\mathrm{eV}$ in natural units. For ground-state hydrogen, with hyperfine splittings unresolved, $g_H=4$ and $g_p=g_e=2$, so the degeneracy ratio is one. Equivalently one can omit nuclear-spin degeneracy consistently from both the proton and atom. Excited hydrogen levels are exponentially suppressed at recombination temperatures. Also $m_H/m_p=1+O(m_e/m_p)$, so its effect in the prefactor is negligible. ThusThe sign of the exponential follows from the smaller rest mass of the bound atom: cooling favours neutral hydrogen once translational entropy no longer compensates the binding energy.

Work in natural units $\hslash =c=k_B=1$, at temperatures far below the $W$-boson mass but of order or above the electron mass. The Fermi interaction then supplies a local four-fermion amplitude. The Fermi constant has dimension energy${}^{-2}$. In scattering of a thermal lepton from a nonrelativistic nucleon, the nucleon current matrix element has size $m_N$, while the lepton current has size $T$. Thus $\mathcal{M}\sim G_F{m}_{N}T$. The two-body relativistic scattering cross-section contains the kinematic factor $s^{-1}\sim m_N^{-2}$; when the final and initial lepton energies are comparable, their momentum ratio is of order one. Consequently $\sigma \sim |\mathcal{M}{|}^2/m_N^2\sim G_F^2{T}^2$. This estimates temperatures above the electron mass and mass-splitting thresholds; those scales only affect the dimensionless rate function near freeze-out.

The light leptons in the thermal bath have number density $n\sim T^3$ and speed of order unity. Their conversion rate per nucleon is thereforeFor example, $n+{\nu }_e\leftrightarrow p+e^{-}$ and $n+e^{+}\leftrightarrow p+{\bar{\nu }}_e$ change the neutron-to-proton ratio. The bath density here is the lepton density, not the much smaller baryon density. Dimensionless weak couplings, phase-space integrals and the several reaction channels set a numerical coefficient. Electron masses and the neutron-proton splitting also become important for a precision rate near cosmological weak freeze-out.

Use natural units and the Minkowski metric $(+---)$, and work at tree level with on-shell final particles. Write $M=m_H$ and, for a final particle of mass $m$, ${\beta }_m=\sqrt{1-4m^2/M^2}$. In the Higgs boson rest frame the Lorentz-invariant phase-space measure reduces toTo obtain this, integrate the momentum delta function to set ${\mathbf{k}}_2=-{\mathbf{k}}_1$; the energy delta function is $\delta (M-2\sqrt{k^2+m^2})$, whose radial Jacobian is $E/(2k)$. Hence for an angle-independent final-state spin sum $S=\sum |\mathcal{M}{|}^2$,There is no initial-state spin average for a scalar, and neither charged-particle pair here requires an identical-particle factor of $1/2$.