text:
# Untitled Document

Symposium on Cosmology and Astrophysics

29-30 January 2002

Department of Physics

Jamia Millia Islamia

Keynote Address
The Relativistic World: A Common Sense Perspective

Naresh Dadhich
Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics,
Pune, India.

The Relativistic World: A common sense perspective

First of all I thank the organizers of the workshop for asking me to give the keynote address. What is expected of it is perhaps to say something profound and interesting which should be accessible to anyone who ventures to step into the lecture hall. This is of very tall order for a person like me. Since my good friends have posed some confidence in me, I shall try my best to live up to their expectations and the occasion.

I would attempt to present to you a new way of looking at things - a farmer’s perspective. What I mean by that is to get to the basic root of concepts with a minimal degree of mathematical and technical sophistication, common sense being the sole guide and torch bearer. That means what I am going to talk should in principle be accessible and hence satisfying one of the key criteria for a key note address.

The concepts of space, time and matter are universal and fundamental. A view consistent with the contemporary understanding of these basic concepts should permeate a rational and truthful world view. By world view I would mean a broad enough framework to probe and understand the world around us, the Universe. For this a correct and proper understanding of space, time and matter is therefore of primary importance. In this lecture, I shall essentially address to these concepts and shall attempt to thread a profound synthesis, which is given the name, Relativistic World.

1. The Newtonian World

In the Newtonian world, space, time and matter are independent and externally provided entities. That is, the question of their creation and existence is not admitted. Motion is described by the three laws of motion governing motion of all that moves. The interaction between bodies in the Universe is described by the law of gravitation which prescribes universal attraction between all bodies and its measure is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to square of the distance separating them.

The first law of motion makes an equivalence statement that Uniform Motion (motion with a constant speed in a straight line) is equivalent to No Motion (rest). That is, it is impossible to distinguish between these two states by performing any physical experiment. Any deviation from this would signal presence or application of an external field or force. In a force free region, a particle would either be at rest or in uniform motion depending upon the initial condition. It would continue in this state until a force acts on it. The only way force makes its presence felt is by changing the velocity of the particle it is acting on.

Conversely if something is moving in a straight line, either there acts no force on it or it acts in the same direction of motion. If something moves in a straight line in all directions, that means no force is acting on it unless there exists in Nature a force which is isotropic - acting in all directions at the same time. If there doesn’t exist such a force in Nature and yet there exists something that moves in a straight line in all directions, its velocity must be a universal constant. So long as everyone agrees on its straight line motion, its velocity must be the same constant for everyone.

Now the question arises, does the Newtonian mechanics permit such a universal velocity which is the same for all observers irrespective of their relative motion? Obviously not because the law of addition of velocity reads as $`w=u+v`$ where $`u`$ is the velocity of a particle relative to an observer who is moving with velocity $`v`$ relative to you. According to this law $`w`$ can never be equal to $`u`$ unless $`v=0`$.

If there exists in Nature a physical entity which propagates in a straight line in all directions, it cannot be accommodated in the Newtonian mechanics and we will have to seek a new mechanics.

Inertial frame (IF) is a frame which is free of all forces. It is a measure of zero force. All interactions/forces will be measured relative to it. It is therefore of fundamental importance to actually realise such a frame. There are four basic forces in Nature, two of which are short range nuclear forces while electromagnetic and gravitation are long range. One doesn’t have to worry about nuclear forces, while it is possible to shield electromagnetic force by proper prescription of charges and currents but it is impossible to shield gravity. Any rearrangement of matter distribution will not be able to remove gravity because unlike electromagnetic field which is both attractive as well as repulsive, it is always attractive. That means it is impossible to realise IF in practice.

Not quite so. Galileo made a fundamental discovery by dropping two unequal mass bodies of different composition that gravity is a truly democratic force it pulls everything equally irrespective of its mass and composition. This gives a remarkable message that gravity can be removed locally by letting the frame fall freely along with everything else. Two freely falling particles will have uniform relative motion between them which is the indication of absence of force between them. This region could only be local, freely falling lift, because all particles fall towards a point, the centre of force. The extent of the force free region is determined by the degree of accuracy required for force freeness.

We thus come to the conclusion that IF could exist only locally. We can only obtain LIFS (local IFs) in actuality and there can exist no global IF. With this the first law of motion would state that all LIFs are equivalent for investigation of any physical phenomenon.

Let us once again bring back the thing which has universal constant velocity relative to all observers. Gravitation is also universal force and hence it must act on everything. The only measure of action of any force is the change it produces in velocity of the particle being acted upon.

The key question is how to make the thing that has universal constant velocity feel the gravitational force, because its velocity cannot change. The incorporation of the universal constant velocity in mechanics asked for new mechanics, and now the incorporation of such a particle’s interaction with gravitation asks for a new theory of gravitation.

We have thus argued that the Newtonian world is unsustainable if a particle of universal constant velocity does exist in Nature, and we have to seek new world which we call Relativistic.

2. Living with Light

Light is in fact that thing which is, even in the Newtonian world, supposed to move in a straight line in all directions. Hence its velocity must be constant for all observers. It is important to note that we have reached this important inference of constancy of velocity of light within the Newtonian framework without reference to light being an electromagnetic wave propagating in an all pervading medium called vacuum. And this fact is in direct conflict with the Newtonian mechanics. This logical inconsistency had lived with the theory over 300 years until the beginning of the previous century.

2.1 Special Relativity

The incorporation of universal constant velocity of light gives rise to the relativistic mechanics, known as the theory of special relativity. It approximates to the Newtonian mechanics when velocities involved are small compared to the velocity of light. This was the reason that we could live with the inconsistency of principle for so long because we did not encounter velocities comparable to velocity of light which could expose the inconsistency in observation. Since the velocity of light is a universal constant, it binds space and time into a synthetic entity spacetime. That is, we cannot confine anything solely to space or to time, and all physical happenings happen in spacetime. For instance, distance could be measured in seconds, distance traveled by light in so many seconds, and conversely time in metres, time taken by light to travel so many metres.

The immediate consequence of this synthesis is the path dependence of time. It is common knowledge that the distance between two points depends upon the path you take to go from one point to the other. Since there now exists the equivalence between space and time, whatever happens to space measurements must happen to time measurements. Consider the time interval between taking off a spaceship and its landing back after a space voyage. The time interval between these two events would be different in the ground based clock and the spaceship borne clock. Since the two clocks take different paths between the two events, they must read differently because like distance time interval is also path dependent. There is nothing unusual in it except that such a situation does not occur in our daily living. That is why it is not so familiar. An immediate corollary follows, the absolute simultaneity is untenable for spatially separated events because the signal of their occurrence would in general reach different observers at different times. The events would be simultaneous only for an observer who is equidistant from the two events.

Further it leads to the equivalence of mass and energy indicated by the famous equation, $`E=Mc^2`$, whose practical and devastating power has been demonstrated by the atomic bomb. The name of Einstein, the creator of the relativistic mechanics, has become synonymous with this equation and to his horror and discomfort inseparable from atom bomb.

At the basic paradigm level we move from 3-dimensional space and 1-dimensional time to the 4-dimensional spacetime. That is, we live in a 4- dimensional Universe. This is a major step forward.

2.2 General Relativity

Gravitation is universal and hence it must interact with everything including light. The question is how to make it interact with light because its velocity cannot change. Here we are faced with a contradiction in principle. Light must feel gravity yet its velocity must not change. In the conventional framework, one can’t feel force without its velocity changing. What is required of light is that it should bend as it grazes close to a massive body. Could it be achieved without changing its velocity?

Consider a piece of wood floating in a river. It bends as the river snakes along. Could a similar happen to light. It propagates in space, and the only way light can bend is that space bends. That means gravity must bend/curve space around a massive body so that light could automatically bend. We have now made another very profound discovery that gravitational field must curve space, and since space and time have already been synthesized, it must curve spacetime. That is the only way to describe gravitation honestly is through the curvature of spacetime. A very radical and revolutionary conclusion. The study of gravitation through the curvature of spacetime is known as general relativity. Once again, this contradiction in principle was not appreciated until 1916. There has emerged no significant new fact about gravitation that has asked for a new theory. It was only a matter of principle which was true even in Newton’s time. Had it not been for Einstein’s unflinching adherence to principle it would have perhaps been not addressed until much later. This gives a good measure of Einstein’s character and priority in science.

Note that what the British astronomer, Eddington measured at the time of total solar eclipse in 1919 was not the bending of light but rather bending of space around the Sun by its own gravity. It is like we see the Sun going round the Earth but in fact it is the other way round. Similarly we though see the light bending but it is in fact the space bending. Gravity produces curvature in spacetime and motion under gravity is simply free motion (of both particles and light) relative to the curved spacetime.

We have now achieved a grander and profounder synthesis of spacetime with gravitation which is produced by matter, and hence of spacetime and matter. This is something new for physics. No other force makes such a demand on spacetime. For all other forces spacetime background is given and it is neither affected by nor does it affect. Gravity radically changes this paradigm, it works through spacetime curvature. Spacetime no longer remains an inert background but becomes dynamic which is essentially the dynamics of gravitational field.

3. Relativistic World

First the universal character of light velocity led us to binding of space and time into spacetime and to the relativistic mechanics called special relativity. Next light’s interaction with gravity could only be mediated through curved space. We can say that light bends space. Gravitation can hence only be described by the spacetime curvature and this description is called general relativity (GR). It ceases to be an external force but instead becomes the property of spacetime geometry.

Relativistic world is characterized by the synthesis of universal entities of space, time, velocity of light and gravitation (matter). The important lesson we learn from this is that all that which is universal must be synthesized. Never mind even if it requires endowing space and time with curvature, a very unusual phenomenon. Spacetime encompasses everything in the Universe. That is the nature of spacetime structure is determined by the matter energy distribution in the Universe. It is therefore no surprise that GR, which is a theory of gravitation as well as of spacetime, should admit the question of beginning of time;i.e. beginning or birth of the Universe (spacetime). It is a perfectly physics question which of course has philosophical overtones.

The Universe becomes a natural arena for application of GR and the study of the Universe of as a whole is called cosmology, which what is the subject matter of discussion for this workshop. The two most remarkable predictions of the Relativistic World are the beginning of the Universe in an explosive Big Bang and the death of a massive star in a black hole. A black hole is a highly compact object producing very high field which in turn curves space around it so confiningly that even light cannot propagate out of it (Recall that light can only move along the space curvature). Since light cannot come out of black hole, nothing else could as well. It is an object whose boundary surface has turned one way, things can go into it but nothing can come out. No information can come out from inside of it.

When a massive enough star has exhausted its nuclear fuel so that its own gravity could not be checked, it shrinks without limit to form a black hole. It would contain inside it a singular state where physical parameters become infinite. Similar is the case at the big bang.

4. End of everything

The breakdown of theory is called by the beautiful name of singularity. It indicates a situation where physical parameters of the theory become untenable by attaining infinite values. For singularity in GR would mean spacetime curvature along with energy density becoming infinite. It would mark breakdown of spacetime curvature. The singularity in GR not only marks the end of GR, but also of everything else. No other physical theory or structure can survive in absence of the proper spacetime background. Thus like gravity its singularity is also universal.

5. Looking ahead

Gravity is a universal interaction and it is therefore not a force like other forces but is a property of spacetime structure of the Universe. The question is how do we address the singularity in the structure of spacetime, indicating its breakdown not only for description of gravity but also as background for all physical phenomena. It indicates the end of everything, and should the answer of it be the Theory of Everything? So do the proponents of the string theory claim. The string theory is one of the proposals for a covering theory to GR which is vigorously being pursued. It proposes in principle a grand vision of synthesis of all forces, quantization of gravity and origin of matter in the Universe. All this is supposed to happen in 10 dimensions. The extra space dimensions are supposed to be compact and manifest only at a very high energies. GR would be the low energy limit of the theory. There is however no natural and unique way to come from 10 to 4 dimensions.

The other approach is that of canonical quantum gravity a la Abhay Ashtekar et al. How to tailor spacetime geometry so that it becomes amenable to quantization? It is essentially the quantization of spacetime geometry. New mathematical tools and constructs as well as new concepts are being developed so as to handle discretization of inherently continuum structure of spacetime. They are in fact evolving quantum geometry. This proposal remains confined to the familiar 4-dimensions.

Both the approaches have about equal share of success, for instance in understanding black hole entropy to some extent. Yet they have both long way to go. The string theory has a strong backup of the large particle physics community while the canonical quantization is pursued mainly by a small group of relativists. The two approaches are quite different, the former relies on the field theoretic techniques and concepts while the latter on the geometric constructs. The two will have to converge as they asymptotically approach the ultimate theory of spacetime, which may or may not be a theory of everything! At any rate, one thing is certain that we do need a new theory which could be string theory or canonical quantum gravity, or something else!

Let us try to see into the unknown on the basis of wisdom gained from our past experience. From Newton to Einstein, the guiding force was light, its constant speed and its interaction with gravity. The latter required space to be curved. On the basis of these simple facts, we could argue that gravitational potential should not only give the acceleration to ordinary particles but also curve space for photons to feel gravity. Since acceleration is given by gradient, constant potential has no dynamical effect. Photons through space curvature directly feel the potential and hence they are sensitive to its value. Therefore constant potential is not ignorable as it does produce non-zero curvature. The Einstein theory has thus to determine in contrast to the Newtonian theory potential absolutely. The journey from old to new theory is always of synthesis. It is the good old Newtonian potential with its zero fixed at infinity. This is a new synthesis.

Further, as there exists the escape velocity threshold for timelike particles, there should also exist a similar threshold for photons. Photons cannot turn back like ordinary particles, the only way they could be kept bound to a gravitating body is that they are not let to propagate out of a compact surface. Since photons define the limiting threshold for propagation of any physical information, from such a surface nothing can come out. It then becomes a oneway surface defining the horizon of a black hole. The existence of black hole then becomes a natural requirement the moment we have photons to contain.

Such profound and distinguishing features of GR could be deduced in principle without reference to the full theory.

The point I wish to make is that it should always be possible to anticipate and deduce some of the features of the new theory. Now when we wish to go beyond Einstein in the high energy regime, what kind of new features could one expect? Unfortunately, there does not seem to be anything like light showing us the path. One possible entity for synthesis is gravitational field energy like the gravitational potential in the Newton-Einstein synergy. In GR, it only manifests through the space curvature. In the high energy limit, could it happen that it becomes concrete like other matter fields. Perhaps it may be the right direction to look for.

The measure of a theory is the kind of questions it admits. New theory admits questions that were not admissible in the earlier theory. For instance, it is a valid question to ask in GR, when did the spacetime (the Universe) begin? And the answer is that it had its explosive birth in hot big-bang about 15-20 billion years ago. The next question in this series for the new theory to answer would be, what is the spacetime made of? That is the fundamental question which should be answered by the new theory.

A fundamental theory also has an impact on the world view. The view that has gained acceptance amongst people at large. For instance, the fact that the earth is not flat but is a curved surface like a ball has been internalized and assimilated in the knowledge base of the present day society. At a slightly higher degree of abstraction, the fact that material bodies attract each-other by an invisible force of gravity has also descended down to the common knowledge culture. The next step of advancement in the similar vein would be the assimilation of the fact that massive bodies curve the space around them. That is the abstract spacetime manifold (the Universe) we live in is not flat but is curved. One of the ways to measure this curvature is by measuring bending of light when it grazes a massive body like a star. Thus the geometry of spacetime should be of as general a concern as the geometry of the planet earth we live on. The only difference is that the former is an abstract entity while the latter is the concrete rock and sand.

Like gravity social interaction is also universal and of great consequence for our existence and well being. It should thus also attract collective concern and attention of all of us with utmost seriousness and commitment. We should never forget the fellow citizens who have been contributing from their honest earnings for our upkeep as well as for the facilities we use for our work. Apart from contributing to the knowledge base by our work in our specific discipline, as persons of learning and more importantly practitioners of scientific method we also owe to the society a studied and responsible participation in the discourses on the issues of wider social relevance.

Let us try to emulate the basic gravitational property of interaction with one and all, and come closer. If this is realised in the true spirit of both science and society, there is a good reason for hope for harmony, peace and an enlightened world community. This is a matter of gravity for one and all, once again a universal pronouncement of profound significance and value.

I close by quoting Ghalib, the great Urdu poet of the 18th century.


format: text

text:
# Some properties of the Schouten tensor and applications to conformal geometry

## 1. Introduction

Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold, $`n3`$, and let the Ricci tensor and scalar curvature be denoted by $`Ric`$ and $`R`$, respectively. We define the Schouten tensor

$`A_g={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n2}}\left(Ric{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(n1)}}Rg\right).`$
There is a decomposition formula (see ):

(1)
$$\text{Riem}=A_gg+𝒲_g,$$

where $`𝒲_g`$ is the Weyl tensor of $`g`$, and $``$ denotes the Kulkarni-Nomizu product (see ). As Weyl tensor is conformally invariant, to study the deformation of conformal metric, we only need to understand the Schouten tensor. A study of $`k`$-th elementary symmetric functions of the Schouten tensor was initiated in , it was reduced to certain fully nonlinear Yamabe type equations. In order to apply elliptic theory of fully nonlinear equations, one often restricts Schouten tensor to be in certain cone $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+`$ defined as follows (according to Gȧrding ).

###### Definition 1.

Let $`(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)𝐑^n`$. Let $`\sigma _k`$ denote the $`k`$th elementary symmetric function

$$\sigma _k(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)=\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_k}{}\lambda _{i_1}\mathrm{}\lambda _{i_k},$$

and we let

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+=\text{component of }\{\sigma _k>0\}\text{ containing}(1,\mathrm{},1).$$

Let $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k^+`$ denote the closure of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+`$. If $`(M,g)`$ is a Riemannian manifold, and $`xM`$, we say $`g`$ has positive (nonnegative resp.) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$-curvature at $`x`$ if its Schouten tensor $`A_g\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k^+`$ resp.) at $`x`$. In this case, we also say $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k^+`$ resp.) at $`x`$.

We note that positive $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$-curvature is equivalent to positive scalar curvature, and the condition of positive $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$-curvature has some geometric and topological consequences for the manifold $`M`$. For example, when $`(M,g)`$ is locally conformally flat with positive $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$-curvature, then $`\pi _i(M)=0,1<i\frac{n}{2}`$ by a result of Schoen-Yau . In this note, we will prove that positive $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$-curvature for any $`k\frac{n}{2}`$ implies positive Ricci curvature.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a Riemannian manifold and $`xM`$, if $`g`$ has positive (nonnegative resp.) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$-curvature at $`x`$ for some $`kn/2`$. Then its Ricci curvature is positive (nonnegative resp.) at $`x`$. Moreover, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$-curvature is nonnegative for some $`k>1`$, then

$$Ric_g\frac{2kn}{2n(k1)}R_gg.$$

In particular if $`k\frac{n}{2}`$,

$$Ric_g\frac{(2kn)(n1)}{(k1)}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^{\frac{1}{k}}\sigma _k^{\frac{1}{k}}(A_g)g.$$

Remark. Theorem 1 is not true for $`k=1`$. Namely the condition of positive scalar curvature gives no restriction on the lower bound of Ricci curvature .

###### Corollary 1.

Let $`(M^n,g)`$ be a compact, locally conformally flat manifold with nonnegative $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$-curvature everywhere for some $`kn/2`$. Then $`(M,g)`$ is conformally equivalent to either a space form or a finite quotient of a Riemannian $`\mathrm{𝕊}^{n1}(c)\times \mathrm{𝕊}^1`$ for some constant $`c>0`$ and $`k=n/2`$. Especially, if $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+`$, then $`(M,g)`$ is conformally equivalent to a spherical space form.

When $`n=3,4`$, the result in Theorem 1 was already observed in  and . Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 will be proved in the next section.

We will also consider the equation

(2) $`\sigma _k(A_{\stackrel{~}{g}})=constant,`$
for conformal metrics $`\stackrel{~}{g}=e^{2u}g`$. This equation was studied in , where it was shown that when $`kn/2`$, (2) is the conformal Euler-Lagrange equation of the functional

(3)
$$_k(g)=vol(g)^{\frac{n2k}{n}}_M\sigma _k(g)𝑑vol(g),$$

when $`k=1,2`$ or for $`k>2`$ when $`M`$ is locally conformally flat. We remark that in the even dimensional locally conformally flat case, $`_{n/2}`$ is a conformal invariant. Moreover, it is a multiple of the Euler characteristic, see .

This problem was further studied studied in , where the following conformal flow was considered:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}g`$ $`=(\mathrm{log}\sigma _k(g)\mathrm{log}r_k(g))g,`$
$`g(0)`$ $`=g_0,`$
where

$$\mathrm{log}r_k=\frac{1}{Vol(g)}_M\mathrm{log}\sigma _k(g)𝑑vol(g).$$

Global existence with uniform $`C^{1,1}`$ a priori bounds of the flow was proved in . It was also proved that for $`kn/2`$ the flow is sequentially convergent in $`C^{1,\alpha }`$ to a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ solution of $`\sigma _k=constant`$. Also, if $`k<n/2`$, then $`_k`$ is decreasing along the flow, and if $`k>n/2`$, then $`_k`$ is increasing along the flow. We remark that the existence result for equation (2) has been obtained independently in  in the locally conformally flat case for all $`k`$.

In Section 3, we will consider global properties of the functional $`_k`$, and give conditions for the existence of a global extremizer. We will also derive some conformal quermassintegral inequalities, which are analogous to the classical quermassintegral inequalities in convex geometry.

## 2. Curvature restriction

We first state a proposition which describes some important properties of the sets $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+`$.

###### Proposition 1.

(i) Each set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+`$ is an open convex cone with vertex at the origin, and we have the following sequence of inclusions

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}^+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^+.$$

(ii) For any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k^+`$ resp.), $`1in`$, let

$$(\mathrm{\Lambda }|i)=(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{i1},\lambda _{i+1},\mathrm{},\lambda _n),$$

then $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }|i)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k1}^+`$ ($`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{k1}^+`$ resp.). In particular,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}^+V_{n1}^+=\{(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)𝐑^n:\lambda _i+\lambda _j>0,ij\}.$$

The proof of this proposition is standard following from .

Our main results are the consequences of the following two lemmas. In this note, we assume that $`k>1`$.

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _{n1},\lambda _n)\mathrm{}^n`$, and define

$$A_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{_{i=1}^n\lambda _i}{2(n1)}(1,1,\mathrm{},1).$$

If $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k^+`$, then

(4)
$$\underset{i=1,\mathrm{},n}{\mathrm{min}}\lambda _i\frac{(2kn)}{2n(k1)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _i.$$

In particular if $`k\frac{n}{2}`$,

$$\underset{i=1,\mathrm{},n}{\mathrm{min}}\lambda _i\frac{(2kn)(n1)}{(n2)(k1)}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)^{\frac{1}{k}}\sigma _k^{\frac{1}{k}}(A_\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

Proof. We first note that, for any non-zero vector $`A=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2^+`$ implies $`\sigma _1(A)>0`$. This can be proved as follow. As $`A\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_2^+`$, $`\sigma _1(A)0`$. If $`\sigma _1(A)=0`$, there must be $`a_i>0`$ for some $`i`$ since $`A`$ is a non-zero vector. We may assume $`a_n>0`$. Let $`(A|n)=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})`$, we have $`\sigma _1(A|n)0`$ by Proposition 1. This would give $`\sigma _1(A)=\sigma _1(A|n)+a_n>0`$, a contradiction.

Now without loss of generality, we may assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not a zero vector. By the assumption $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k^+`$ for $`k2`$, so we have $`_{i=1}^n\lambda _i>0`$.

Define

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=(1,1,\mathrm{},1,\delta _k)\mathrm{}^{n1}\times \mathrm{}$$

and we have $`A_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=(a,\mathrm{},a,b)`$, where

$$\delta _k=\frac{(2kn)(n1)}{2nk2kn},$$

$$a=1\frac{n1+\delta _k}{2(n1)},b=\delta _k\frac{n1+\delta _k}{2(n1)}$$

so that

(5)
$$\sigma _k(A_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0})=0\text{ and }\sigma _j(A_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0})>0\text{ for }jk1.$$

It is clear that $`\delta _k<1`$ and so that $`a>b`$. Since (4) is invariant under the transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to $`s\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for $`s>0`$, we may assume that $`_{i=1}^n\lambda _i=\text{tr}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)=n1+\delta _k`$ and $`\lambda _n=\mathrm{min}_{i=1,\mathrm{},n}\lambda _i`$. We write

$$A_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n).$$

We claim that

(6)
$$\lambda _n\delta _k.$$

This is equivalent to show

(7)
$$a_nb.$$

Assume by contradiction that $`a_n<b`$. We consider $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t=t\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+(1t)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and

$$A_t:=A_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}=tA_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}+(1t)A_\mathrm{\Lambda }=((1t)a+ta_1,\mathrm{},(1t)a+ta_{n1},(1t)b+ta_n).$$

By the convexity of the cone $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+`$ (see Proposition 1), we know

$$A_t\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k^+,\text{ for any }t(0,1].$$

Especially, $`f(t):=\sigma _k(A_t)0`$ for any $`t[0,1].`$ By the definition of $`\delta _k`$, $`f(0)=0`$.

For any $`i`$ and any vector $`V=(v_1,\mathrm{},v_n)`$, we denote $`(V|i)=(v_1,\mathrm{},v_{i1},v_{i+1},\mathrm{},v_n)`$ be the vector with the $`i`$-th component removed. Now we compute the derivative of $`f`$ at $`0`$

$$f^{}(0)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(a_ia)\sigma _{k1}(A_0|i)+(a_nb)\sigma _{k1}(A_0|n).$$

Since $`(A_0|i)=(A_0|1)`$ for $`in1`$ and $`_{i=1}^na_i=(n1)a+b`$, we have

$$f^{}(0)=(a_nb)(\sigma _{k1}(A_0|n)\sigma _{k1}(A_0|1))<0,$$

for $`\sigma _{k1}(A_0|n)\sigma _{k1}(A_0|1)>0`$. (Recall that $`b<a`$.) This is a contradiction, hence $`\lambda _n\delta _k`$. It follows that

$$\underset{i=1,\mathrm{},n}{\mathrm{min}}\lambda _i\delta _k=\frac{2kn}{2n(k1)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _i.$$

Finally, the last inequality in the lemma follows from the Newton-MacLaurin inequality.

Remark. It is clear from the above proof that the constant in Lemma 1 is optimal.

We next consider the case $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\frac{n}{2}}^+`$.

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`k=n/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)\mathrm{}^n`$ with $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k^+`$. Then either $`\lambda _i>0`$ for any $`i`$ or

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\lambda ,\lambda ,\mathrm{},\lambda ,0)$$

up to a permutation. If the second case is true, then we must have $`\sigma _{\frac{n}{2}}(A_\mathrm{\Lambda })=0`$.

Proof. By Lemma 1, to prove the Lemma we only need to check that for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _{n1},0)`$ with $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k^+`$,

$$\lambda _i=\lambda _j,i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},2k1.$$

We use the same idea as in the proof of the previous Lemma. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not a zero vector. By the assumption $`A_\mathrm{\Lambda }\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k^+`$ for $`k2`$, we have $`_{i=1}^{n1}\lambda _i>0`$. Hence we may assume that $`_{i=1}^{n1}\lambda _i=n1`$. Define

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=(1,1,\mathrm{},1,0)\mathrm{}^n$$

It is easy to check that

(8)
$$A_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{k1}^+\text{and}\sigma _k(A_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0})=0.$$

That is, $`A_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k^+`$. If $`\lambda `$’s are not all the same, we have

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(\lambda _i1)=0,$$

and

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(\lambda _i1)^2>0.$$

Now consider $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t=t\mathrm{\Lambda }_0+(1t)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and

$$A_t:=A_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_t}=tA_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}+(1t)A_\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\frac{1}{2}+t(\lambda _11),\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2}+t(\lambda _{n1}1),\frac{1}{2}).$$

From the assumption that $`A\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k^+`$, (8) and the convexity of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k^+`$, we have

(9)
$$A_t\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_k^+\text{for }t>0.$$

For any $`ij`$ and any vector $`A`$, we denote $`(A|ij)`$ be the vector with the $`i`$-th and $`j`$-th components removed. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=(\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ be $`n1`$-vector, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=(\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ be $`n2`$-vector. It is clear that $`ij,i,jn1`$,

$$\sigma _{k1}(A_0|i)=\sigma _{k1}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})>0,$$

$$\sigma _{k2}(A_0|ij)=\sigma _{k2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})>0.$$

Now we expand $`f(t)=\sigma _k(A_t)`$ at $`t=0`$. By (8), $`f(0)=0`$. We compute

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill f^{}(0)& =& \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(\lambda _i1)\sigma _{k1}(A_0|i)\hfill \\ & =& \sigma _{k1}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(\lambda _i1)=0\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill f^{\prime \prime }(0)& =& \underset{ij}{}(\lambda _i1)(\lambda _j1)\sigma _{k2}(A_0|ij)\hfill \\ & =& \sigma _{k2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})\underset{ij}{}(\lambda _i1)(\lambda _j1)\hfill \\ & =& \sigma _{k2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(\lambda _i1)^2<0,\hfill \end{array}$$

for $`\sigma _{k2}(A_0|ij)=\sigma _{k2}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})>0`$ for any $`ij`$ and $`_{ij}(\lambda _j1)=(1\lambda _i)`$. Hence $`f(t)<0`$ for small $`t>0`$, which contradicts (9).

Remark. From the proof of Lemma 2, there is a constant $`C>0`$ depending only on $`n`$ and $`\frac{\sigma _{\frac{n}{2}}^{\frac{2}{n}}(A_\mathrm{\Lambda })}{\sigma _1(A_\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$ such that

$$\underset{i}{\mathrm{min}}\lambda _iC\sigma _{\frac{n}{2}}^{\frac{2}{n}}(A_\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

Proof of Theorem 1. Theorem 1 follows directly from Lemmas 1 and 2.

###### Corollary 2.

Let $`(M,g)`$ is a $`n`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold and $`kn/2`$, and let $`N=M\times \mathrm{𝕊}^1`$ be the product manifold. Then $`N`$ does not have positive $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$-curvature. If $`N`$ has nonnegative $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$-curvature, then $`(M,g)`$ is an Einstein manifold, and there are two cases: either $`k=n/2`$ or $`k>n/2`$ and $`(M,g)`$ is a torus.

Proof. This follows from Lemmas 1 and 2.

Proof of Corollary 1. From Theorem 1, we know that the Ricci curvature $`Ric_g`$ is nonnegative. Now we deform it by the Yamabe flow considered by Hamilton, Ye  and Chow  to obtain a conformal metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ of constant scalar curvature. The Ricci curvature $`Ric_{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ is nonnegative, for the Yamabe flow preserves the non-negativity of Ricci curvature, see . Now by a classification result given in , we have $`(M,\stackrel{~}{g})`$ is isometric to either a space form or a finite quotient of a Riemannian $`\mathrm{𝕊}^{n1}(c)\times \mathrm{𝕊}^1`$ for some constant $`c>0`$. In the latter case, it is clear that $`k=n/2`$, otherwise it can not have nonnegative $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$-curvature.

Next, we will prove that if $`M`$ is locally conformally flat with positive $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}`$-curvature, then $`g`$ has positive sectional curvature. If $`M`$ is locally conformally flat, then by (1) we may decompose the full curvature tensor as

$$\text{Riem}=A_gg.$$

###### Proposition 2.

Assume that $`n=3`$, or that $`M`$ is locally conformally flat. Then Schouten tensor $`A_gV_{n1}^+`$ if and only if $`g`$ has positive sectional curvature.

Proof. Let $`\pi `$ be any $`2`$-plane in $`T_p(N)`$, and let $`X`$,$`Y`$ be an orthonormal basis of $`\pi `$. We have that

$`K(\sigma )`$ $`=\text{Riem}(X,Y,X,Y)=A_gg(X,Y,X,Y)`$
$`=A_g(X,X)g(Y,Y)A_g(Y,X)g(X,Y)+A_g(Y,Y)g(X,X)A_g(X,Y)g(Y,X)`$
$`=A_g(X,X)+A_g(Y,Y).`$
From this it follows that

$$\underset{\sigma T_pN}{\text{min}}K(\sigma )=\lambda _1+\lambda _2,$$

where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are the smallest eigenvalues of $`A_g`$ at $`p`$.

###### Corollary 3.

If $`(M,g)`$ is locally conformally flat with positive $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n1}`$-curvature, then $`g`$ has positive sectional curvature.

Proof. This follows easily from Propositions 1 and 2.

## 3. Extremal metrics of $`\sigma _k`$-curvature functionals

We next consider some properties of the functionals $`_k`$ associated to $`\sigma _k`$. These functionals were introduced and discussed in , see also . Further variational properties in connection to $`3`$-dimensional geometry were studied in .

We recall that $`_k`$ is defined by

$$_k(g)=vol(g)^{\frac{n2k}{n}}_M\sigma _k(g)𝑑vol(g).$$

We denote $`𝒞_k=\{g[g_0]|g\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+\}`$, where $`[g_0]`$ is the conformal class of $`g_0`$.

We now apply our results to show that if $`g_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\frac{n}{2}}^+`$, then there is an extremal metric $`g_e`$ which minimizes $`_m`$ for $`m<n/2`$, and if $`m>n/2`$, there is an extremal metric $`g_e`$ which maximizes $`_m`$.

###### Proposition 3.

Suppose $`(M,g_0)`$ is locally conformally flat and $`g_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+`$ for some $`k\frac{n}{2}`$, then $`m<\frac{n}{2}`$ there is an extremal metric $`g_e^m[g_0]`$ such that

(10)
$$\underset{g𝒞_m}{inf}_m(g)=_m(g_e^m),$$

and $`m>\frac{n}{2}`$, there is extremal metric $`g_e^m[g_0]`$ such that

(11)
$$\underset{g𝒞_m}{sup}_k(g)=_k(g_e^m),$$

In fact, any solution to $`\sigma _m(g)=constant`$ is an extremal metric.

Proof. First by Corollary 1, $`(M,g_0)`$ is conformal to a spherical space form. For any $`g𝒞_m`$, from  we know there is a conformal metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ in $`𝒞_m`$ satisfying that $`\sigma _m(\stackrel{~}{g})`$ is constant and

* if $`m>n/2`$, then $`_m(g)_m(\stackrel{~}{g})`$.
* if $`m<n/2`$, then $`_m(g)_m(\stackrel{~}{g})`$.

A classification result of ,  which is analogous to a result of Obata for the scalar curvature, shows that $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ has constant sectional curvature. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is the unique critical metric unless $`M`$ is conformally equivalent to $`\mathrm{𝕊}^n`$, in which case any critical metric is the image of the standard metric under a conformal diffeomorphism. The clearly implies the conclusion of the Proposition.

Next we consider the case $`k<n/2`$. We have

###### Proposition 4.

Suppose $`(M,g_0)`$ is locally conformally flat and $`g_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+`$ for some $`k<\frac{n}{2}`$. Suppose furthermore that for any fixed $`C>0`$, the space of solutions to the equation $`\sigma _k=C`$ is compact, with a bound independent of the constant $`C`$. Then there is an extremal metric $`g_e^k[g_0]`$ such that

$$\underset{g𝒞_k}{inf}_k(g)=_k(g_e^k).$$

Proof. From the compactness assumption, there exists a critical metric $`g_e^k`$ which has least energy. If the functional assumed a value strictly lower than $`_k(g_e^k)`$, then by , the flow would decrease to another solution of $`\sigma _k=constant`$, which is a contradiction since $`g_e^k`$ has minimal energy.

We conclude with conformal quermassintegral inequalities, which were speculated in , and verified there for some special cases when $`(M,g)`$ is locally conformally flat and $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\frac{n}{2}1}^+`$ or $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\frac{n}{2}+1}^+`$ using the flow method. In the case of $`k=2,n=4`$, the inequality was proved in  without the locally conformally flat assumption.

###### Proposition 5.

Suppose $`(M,g_0)`$ is locally conformally flat and $`g_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+`$ for some $`k\frac{n}{2}`$, then for any $`1l<\frac{n}{2}kn`$ there is a constant $`C(k,l,n)>0`$, such that for any $`g[g_0]`$ and $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+`$

(12)
$$(_k(g))^{1/k}C(k,l,n)(_l(g))^{1/l},$$

with equality if and only if $`(M,g)`$ is a spherical space form.

Proof. By Proposition 3, we have a conformal metric $`g_e`$ of constant sectional curvature satisfies such that

$$\underset{g𝒞_l}{inf}_l(g)=_l(g_e)$$

and

$$\underset{g𝒞_k}{sup}_k(g)=_k(g_e).$$

Hence, we have for any $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^+`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{(_k(g))^{1/k}}{(_l(g))^{1/l}}& & \frac{(_k(g_e))^{1/k}}{(_l(g_e))^{1/l}}\hfill \\ & =& \frac{(l!(nl)!)^{1/l}}{(k!(nk)!)^{1/k}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

When the equality holds, $`g`$ is an extremal of $`_l`$, hence a metric of constant sectional curvature by .


text:
# The Intriguing Distribution of Dark Matter in Galaxies

## 1 Introduction

Rotation curves (RC’s) of disk galaxies are the best probe for dark matter (DM) on galactic scale. Notwithstanding the impressive amount of knowledge gathered in the past 20 years, only very recently we start to shed light to crucial aspects of the mass distribution of dark halos, including their radial density profile, and its claimed universality. On a cosmological side, high–resolution N–body simulations have shown that cold dark matter (CDM) halos achieve a specific equilibrium density profile \[13 hereafter NFW, 5, 8, 12, 9\] characterized by one free parameter, e.g. the halo mass. In the inner region the DM halos density profiles show some scatter around an average profile which is characterized by a power–law cusp $`\rho r^\gamma `$, with $`\gamma =11.5`$ . In detail, the DM density profile is:

$$\rho _{\mathrm{NFW}}(r)=\frac{\rho _s}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2}$$
(1)
where $`r_s`$ and $`\rho _s`$ are respectively the characteristic inner radius and density. Let us define $`r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ as the radius within which the mean density is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ times the mean universal density $`\rho _m`$ at the halo formation redshift, and the associated virial mass $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ and velocity $`V_{\mathrm{vir}}GM_{\mathrm{vir}}/r_{\mathrm{vir}}`$. Hereafter we assume the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM scenario, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`h=0.75`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{vir}}340`$ at $`z0`$. By assuming the concentration parameter as $`cr_{\mathrm{vir}}/r_s`$ the halo circular velocity $`V_{\mathrm{NFW}}(r)`$ takes the form :

$$V_{\mathrm{NFW}}^2(r)=V_{vir}^2\frac{c}{A(c)}\frac{A(x)}{x}$$
(2)
where $`xr/r_s`$ and $`A(x)\mathrm{ln}(1+x)x/(1+x)`$. As the relation between $`V_{vir}`$ and $`r_{vir}`$ is fully specified by the background cosmology, the independent parameters characterizing the model reduce from three to two ($`c`$ and $`r_s`$). Let us stress that a high density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$ model, with a concentration parameter $`c>12`$, is definitely unable to account for the observed galaxy kinematics .

So far, due to the limited number of suitable RC’s and to the serious uncertainties in deriving the actual amount of luminous matter inside the inner regions of spirals, it has been difficult to investigate the internal structure of dark halos. These difficulties have been overcome by means of:
i) a specific investigation of the Universal Rotation Curve , built by coadding $`1000`$ RC’s, in which we adopt a general halo mass distribution:

$$V_{h,URC}^2(x)=V_{opt}^2(1\beta )(1+a^2)\frac{x^2}{(x^2+a^2)}$$
(3)
with $`xr/r_{opt}`$, $`a`$ the halo core radius in units of $`r_{opt}`$ and $`\beta (V_{d,URC}(r_{opt})/V_{opt})^2`$. It is important to remark that, out to $`r_{opt}`$, this mass model is neutral with respect to the halo profile. Indeed, by varying $`\beta `$ and $`a`$, we can efficiently reproduce the maximum–disk, the solid–body, the no–halo, the all–halo, the CDM and the core-less–halo models. For instance, CDM halos with concentration parameter $`c=5`$ and $`r_s=r_{opt}`$ are well fit by (3) with $`a0.33`$
ii) a number of suitably selected individual RC’s , whose mass decomposition has been made adopting the cored Burkert–Borriello–Salucci (BBS) halo profile (see below).

## 2 Dark Matter Properties from the Universal Rotation Curve

The observational framework is the following: a) the mass in spirals is distributed according to the Inner Baryon Dominance (IBD) regime : there is a characteristic transition radius $`r_{IBD}2r_d(V_{opt}/220\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s})^{1.2}`$ ($`r_d`$ is the disk scale–length and $`V_{opt}V(r_{opt})`$) according which, for $`rr_{IBD}`$, the luminous matter totally accounts for the gravitating mass, whereas, for $`r>r_{IBD}`$, the dark matter shows dynamically up and rapidly becomes the dominant component . Then, although dark halo might extend down to the galaxy centers, it is only for $`r>r_{IBD}`$ that they give a non–negligible contribution to the circular velocity. b) DM is distributed in a different way with respect to any of the various baryonic components , and c) HI contribution to the circular velocity at $`r<r_{opt}`$, is negligible \[e.g. 17\].

### 2.1 Mass modeling

Persic, Salucci and Stel  have derived from $`15000`$ velocity measurements of $`1000`$ RC’s the synthetic rotation velocities of spirals $`V_{syn}(\frac{r}{r_{opt}};\frac{L_I}{L_{}})`$, sorted by luminosity (Fig. 1, with $`L_I`$ the $`I`$–band luminosity ($`L_I/L_{}=10^{(M_I+21.9)/5}`$). Remarkably, individual RC’s have a negligible variance with respect to their corresponding synthetic curves: spirals sweep a very narrow locus in the RC- profile/amplitude/luminosity space. In addition, kinematical properties of spirals do significantly change with galaxy luminosity \[e.g. 16\], then it is natural to relate their mass distribution with this quantity. The whole set of synthetic RC’s define the Universal Rotation Curve (URC), composed by the sum of two terms: a) an exponential thin disk with circular velocity (see ):

$$V_{d,URC}^2(x)=1.28\beta V_{opt}^2x^2(I_0K_0I_1K_1)|_{1.6x}$$
(4)
and a spherical halo, whose velocity contribution is given by (3). At high luminosities, the contribution from a bulge component has also been considered.

The data (i.e. the synthetic curves $`V_{syn}`$) select the actual model out of this family, by setting $`V_{URC}^2(x)=V_{h,URC}^2(x,\beta ,a)+V_{d,URC}^2(x,\beta )`$ with $`a`$ and $`\beta `$ as free parameters. An extremely good fit occurs for $`a1.5(L_I/L_{})`$  or, equivalently, for $`a=a(\beta )`$ and $`\beta =\beta (\mathrm{log}V_{opt})`$ as plotted in Fig. 2. With these values the URC reproduces the data $`V_{syn}(r)`$ up to their rms (i.e. within $`2\%`$). Moreover, at fixed luminosity the $`\sigma `$ fitting uncertainties in $`a`$ and $`\beta `$ are lesser than 20%. The emerging picture is: i) smaller objects have more fractional amount of dark matter (inside $`r_{\mathrm{opt}}`$: $`M_{}/M_{\mathrm{vir}}0.2(M_{}/2\times 10^{11}M_{})^{0.75}`$ ), ii) dark mass increses with radius much more that linearly.

### 2.2 Halo Density Profiles

The above evidence calls for a quite specific DM density profile; we adopt the BBS halo mass distribution :

$$\rho _{\mathrm{BBS}}(r)=\frac{\rho _0r_0^3}{(r+r_0)(r^2+r_0^2)}$$
(5)
where $`\rho _0`$ and $`r_0`$ are free parameters which represent the central DM density and the core radius. Of course, for $`r_0r_d`$, we recover a cuspy profile. Within spherical symmetry, the mass distribution is given by:

$$M_{\mathrm{BBS}}(r)=4M_0\{\mathrm{ln}(1+r/r_0)\mathrm{arctan}(r/r_0)+0.5\mathrm{ln}[1+(r/r_0)^2]\}$$
(6)
$$M_01.6\rho _0r_0^3$$
(7)
with $`M_0`$ the dark mass within the core. The halo contribution to the circular velocity is then: $`V_{\mathrm{BBS}}^2(r)=GM_{\mathrm{BBS}}(r)/r`$. Although the dark matter “core” parameters $`r_0`$, $`\rho _0`$ and $`M_0`$ are in principle independent, the observations reveal a quite strong correlation among them \[e.g. 19\]. Then, dark halos may be an 1–parameter family, completely specified by e.g. their core mass $`M_0`$. When we test the disk+BBS velocities with $`\rho _0`$ and $`r_0`$ left as free parameters, we find that, at any luminosity and out to $`6r_d`$, the model is indistinguishable from data (i.e. $`V_{syn}(r)`$).

More specifically, we reproduce the synthetic rotation curves at the level of their rms. The values of $`r_0`$ and $`\rho _0`$ derived in this way agree with the extrapolation at high masses of the scaling law $`\rho r_0^{2/3}`$  established for objects with much smaller core radii $`r_0`$ and stellar masses (see Fig. 3). Let us notice that the core radii are pretty large ($`r_0r_d`$): ever-rising halo RC’s cannot be excluded by the data. Moreover, spirals lie on the extrapolation of the disk–mass vs. central halo density relationship $`\rho _0M_d^{1/3}`$ found for dwarf galaxies , to indicate that the densest halos harbor the least massive disks (see Fig. 3).

The curvature in $`\rho _0`$ vs. $`r_0`$ at the highest masses/lowest densities can be linked to the existence of an upper mass limit in $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}`$ which is evident by the sudden decline of the baryonic mass function of disk galaxies at $`M_d^{max}=2\times 10^{11}M_{}`$ . In fact, such a limit implies a maximum halo mass of $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}^{max}\mathrm{\Omega }_0/\mathrm{\Omega }_bM_d^{max}`$. Then, for (6) and (7), $`M_{\mathrm{vir}}=\eta M_0`$, with $`\eta 12`$ for ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$ ,$`z`$) = (0.3, 0.03, 3), and the limiting halo mass implies a lack of objects with $`\rho _0>4\times 10^{25}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`r_0>30\mathrm{kpc}`$, as is evident in Fig. 3. On the other side, the observed deficit of objects with $`M_dM_d^{max}`$ and $`\rho _0>4\times 10^{25}\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3`$, suggests that, at this mass scale, the total–to–baryonic density ratio nears the cosmological value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0/\mathrm{\Omega }_b10`$.

### 2.3 Testing CDM with the URC

The BBS density profile reproduces in synthetic RC’s the DM halo contributions, at least out to two optical radii. This is in contradiction with CDM halo properties according to which the velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ of the dark matter particles decreases towards the center to reach $`\sigma 0`$ for $`r0`$. Dark halos therefore, are not kinematically cold structures, but “warm” regions of sizes $`r_0\rho _0^{1.5}`$ which, by the way, turn up quite large: $`r_047r_d`$. Then, the boundary of the core region is well beyond the region of the stellar disk and there is not evidence that dark halos converge to a $`\rho r^2`$ (or a steeper) regime, as dictated by CDM predictions.

## 3 Dark Matter Properties from Individual Rotation Curves

Although deriving halo densities from individual RC’s is certainly complicated, the belief according to which one always gets ambiguous halo mass modeling \[e.g. 22\] is incorrect. In fact, this is true only for rotation curves of low spatial resolution, i.e. with less than $`3`$ measures per exponential disk length–scale occurring in most HI RC’s. In this case, since the parameters of the galaxy structure are very sensitive to the shape of the rotation curve in the region $`0<r<r_d`$, there are no sufficient data to constrain models.

In the case of high–quality optical RC’s tens of independent measurements in the critical region make possible to infer the halo mass distribution. Moreover, since the dark component can be better traced when the disk contributes to the dynamics in a modest way, a convenient strategy leads to investigate DM–dominated objects, like dwarf and low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies. It is well known that for the latter \[e.g. 7, 11, 3, 4, 9, 10, 21\] the results are far from being definitive in that they are 1) affected by a quite low spatial resolution and 2) uncertain, due to the limited amount of available kinematical data \[e.g. 23\].

Since most of the properties of cosmological halos are claimed universal, an useful strategy is to investigate a number of high–quality optical rotation curves of low luminosity  late–type spirals, with $`I`$–band absolute magnitudes $`21.4<M_I<20.0`$ and $`100<V_{opt}<170`$ km s-1. Objects in this luminosity/velocity range are DM dominated \[e.g. 20\] but their RC’s, measured at an angular resolution of $`2^{\prime \prime }`$, have an excellent spatial resolution of $`100(D/10\mathrm{Mpc})`$ pc and $`n_{data}r_{opt}/w`$ independent measurements. For nearby galaxies: $`w<<r_d`$ and $`n_{data}>25`$. Moreover, we select RC’s of bulge–less systems, so that the stellar disk is the only baryonic component for $`r\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}r_d`$.

In detail, we extract the best 9 rotation curves, from the ‘excellent’ subsample of $`80`$ rotation curves of , which are all suitable for an accurate mass modeling. In fact, these RC’s trace properly the gravitational potential in that: 1) data extend at least out to the optical radius, 2) they are smooth and symmetric, 3) they have small rms, 4) they have high spatial resolution and a homogeneous radial data coverage, i.e. about $`30100`$ data points homogeneously distributed with radius and between the two arms. The 9 extracted galaxies are of low luminosity ($`5\times 10^9L_{}<L_I<2\times 10^{10}L_{}`$; $`100<V_{opt}<170`$ km s-1) and their $`I`$–band surface luminosity profiles are (almost) perfect radial exponential. These two last criteria, not indispensable to perform the mass decomposition, help inferring the dark halo density distribution. Each RC has $`715`$ velocity points inside $`r_{opt}`$, each one being the average of $`26`$ independent data. The RC’s spatial resolution is better than $`1/20r_{opt}`$, the velocity rms is about $`3\%`$ and the RC’s logarithmic derivative is generally known within about 0.05.

### 3.1  Halo Density Profiles

We model the mass distribution as the sum of two components: a stellar disk and a spherical dark halo. By assuming centrifugal equilibrium under the action of the gravitational potential, the observed circular velocity can be split into the two components: $`V^2(r)=V_d^2(r)+V_h^2(r)`$. By selection, the objects are bulge–less and stars are distributed like an exponential thin disk. Light traces the mass via an assumed radially constant mass–to–light ratio.

We neglect the gas contribution $`V_{gas}(r)`$ since in normal spirals it is usually modest within the optical region \[17, Fig. 4.13\]: $`\beta _{gas}(V_{\mathrm{gas}}^2/V^2)_{r_{opt}}0.1`$. Furthermore, high resolution HI observations show that in low luminosity spirals: $`V_{gas}(r)0`$ for $`r<r_d`$ and $`V_{gas}(r)(20\pm 5)(rr_d)/2r_d`$ for $`r_dr3r_d`$. Thus, in the optical region: i) $`V_{gas}^2(r)<<V^2(r)`$ and ii) $`d[V^2(r)V_{gas}^2(r)]/dr\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{>}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. This last condition implies that by including $`V_{gas}`$ the halo velocity profiles would result steeper and then the core radius in the halo density even larger. Incidentally, this is not the case for dwarfs and LSB s: most of their kinematics is affected by the HI disk gravitational pull in such a way that neglecting it could bias the determination of the DM density. The circular velocity profile of the disk is given by (4) and the DM halo will have the form given by (3). Since we normalize (at $`r_{opt}`$) the velocity model $`(V_d^2+V_h^2)^{1/2}`$ to the observed rotation speed $`V_{opt}`$, $`\beta `$ enters explicitly in the halo velocity model and this reduces the free parameters of the mass model to two.

For each galaxy, we determine the values of the parameters $`\beta `$ and $`a`$ by means of a $`\chi ^2`$–minimization fit to the observed rotation curves:

$$V_{model}^2(r;\beta ,a)=V_d^2(r;\beta )+V_h^2(r;\beta ,a)$$
(8)
A central role in discriminating among the different mass decompositions is played by the derivative of the velocity field $`dV/dr`$. It has been shown \[e.g. 14\] that by taking into account the logarithmic gradient of the circular velocity field defined as: $`(r)\frac{d\mathrm{log}V(r)}{d\mathrm{log}r}`$ one can retrieve the crucial information stored in the shape of the rotation curve. Then, we set the $`\chi ^2`$’s as the sum of those evaluated on velocities and on logarithmic gradients: $`\chi _V^2=_{i=1}^{n_V}\frac{V_iV_{model}(r_i;\beta ,a)}{\delta V_i}`$ and $`\chi _{}^2=_{i=1}^n_{}\frac{(r_i)_{model}(r_i;\beta ,a)}{\delta _i}`$, with $`_{model}(r_i,\beta ,a)`$ given from the above equations. The parameters of the mass models are finally obtained by minimizing the quantity $`\chi _{tot}^2\chi _V^2+\chi _{}^2`$.

The best–fit models parameters are shown in Fig. 4. The disk–contribution $`\beta `$ and the halo core radius $`a`$ span a range from 0.1 to 0.5 and from 0.8 to 2.5, respectively. They are pretty well constrained in a small and continuous region of the ($`a`$, $`\beta `$) space. The derived mass models are shown in Fig. 5, alongside with the separate disk and halo contributions. We also get a “lowest” and a “highest” halo velocity curve (dashed lines in figure) by subtracting from $`V(r)`$ the maximum and the minimum disk contributions $`V_d(r)`$ obtained by substituting in (4) the parameter $`\beta `$ with $`\beta _{best}+\delta \beta `$ and $`\beta _{best}\delta \beta `$, respectively. It is obvious that the halo curves are steadily increasing, almost linearly, out to the last data point. In each object the uniqueness of the resulting halo velocity model can be realized by the fact that the maximum–disk and minimum–disk models almost coincide. Remarkably, we find that the size of the halo density core is always greater than the disk characteristic scale–length $`r_d`$ and it can extend beyond the disk edge (and the region investigated).

### 3.2 Testing CDM

In Fig. 5 we show how the halo velocity profiles of the nine galaxies rise almost linearly with radius, at least out to the disk edge:

$$V_h(r)r0.05r_{opt}\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}r\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}r_{opt}$$
(9)
The halo density profile has a well defined (core) radius within which the density is approximately constant. This is inconsistent with the singular halo density distribution emerging in the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) halo formation scenario. More precisely, since the CDM halos are, at small radii, likely more cuspy than the NFW profile: $`\rho _{CDM}r^{1.5}`$ \[e.g. 14\], the steepest CDM halo velocity profile $`V_h(r)r^{1/4}`$ results too shallow with respect to observations. Although the mass models of (3) converge to a distribution with an inner core rather than with a central spike, it is worth, given the importance of such result, checking in a direct way the (in)compatibility of the CDM models with galaxy kinematics.

So, we assume the NFW functional form for the halo density given by (1), leaving $`c`$ and $`r_s`$ as free independent parameters, although N–body simulations and semi-analytic investigations indicate that they correlate. This choice to increase the chance of a good fit. We also imposed to the object under study a conservative halo mass upper limit of $`2\times 10^{12}M_{}`$. The fits to the data are shown in Fig. 6, together with the BBS fits: for seven out of nine objects the NFW models are unacceptably worse than the BBS solutions. Moreover, in all objects, the CDM virial mass is too high: $`M_{vir}2\times 10^{12}M_{}`$ and the resulting disk mass–to–light ratio too low ($`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^1`$ in the $`I`$-band).

## 4 The Intriguing Evidence from Dark Matter Halos

The dark halos around spirals emerge as an one–parameter family; the order parameter (either the central density or the core radius) correlates with the luminous mass. However, we do not know how it is related to the global structural properties of the dark halo, like the virial radius or the virial mass, unless we extrapolate out over the BBS profile. That is because the halo RC, out to the outermost data, is completely determined by physical parameters, the central core density and the core radius, which have little counterpart in the gravitational instability/hierarchical clustering picture.

Caveat the above extrapolation, the location of spiral galaxies in the virtual space of virial mass/halo “central” density/stellar mass, that, on theorethical basis, should be roughly 3-D random determined by several different and non–linear physical processes, is remarkably found to degenerate and to lie on a curve. Indeed, in Fig.7 we show the dark–to–luminous mass ratio as function of the normalized radius and the total disk mass. The surface has been obtained by adopting the correlations between the halo and the disk parameters we found in our previous works (see Fig.3 ):

$`\mathrm{log}r_0=9.10+0.28\mathrm{log}\rho _03.49\times 10^{10}\rho _0^{0.43}`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{log}\rho _0=23.00.077\mathrm{log}M_d9.98\times 10^6M_d^{0.43}`$ (11)
and:

$$\mathrm{log}r_d=4.961.17\mathrm{log}M_d+0.070(\mathrm{log}M_d)^2$$
(12)
from data in . The dark–to–luminous mass ratio at fixed ratio increases as the total disk mass decreases; for example at $`r=10r_d`$ it raises from $`20\%`$ for massive disks ($`M_d=10^{12}M_{}`$) to $`220\%`$ for smaller disks ($`M_d=10^9M_{}`$).

Two conclusive statements can be drawn: dark matter halos have an inner constant–density region, whose size exceeds the stellar disk length–scale. Second, there is no evidence that dark halos converge, at large radii, to a $`\rho r^2`$ (or steeper) profile.

The existence of a region of “constant” density $`\rho _0\frac{\pi }{24}\frac{M_{\mathrm{vir}}}{r_0^3}`$ and size $`r_0`$ is hardly explained within current theories of galaxy formation. Moreover, the evidence of a smooth halo profile is growing more an more in recent literature \[e.g. 26, 27, 28, 29\] and a number of different solutions have been proposed to solve this problem \[e.g. 30, 31, 32, 33\]. Let us stress, however, that we should incorporate all the intriguing halo properties described in this review.