BeeTheory · Galactic Application · Technical Note XXXIV

Mass Decomposition by Geometric Form:
The 23 Galaxies in 5 Components

For each of the 23 calibration galaxies, we break the visible mass into 5 standard geometric components: bulge (Hernquist sphere), thin stellar disk (exponential, narrow $z$), thick stellar disk (exponential, broader $z$), HI gas disk (extended exponential), and external halo. The decomposition gives both absolute masses and percentages. For each galaxy, the two dominant components are highlighted in green — they identify the dynamically relevant forms whose wave fields will matter most.

1. The five geometric forms

FormProfileWhen present
BulgeHernquist sphere, $\rho \propto r/(r+r_b)^3$Early types only (Hubble $T \leq 3$)
Thin diskExponential $\Sigma \propto e^{-R/R_d}$, scale height $\sim 0.3$ kpcAll disk galaxies — main stellar component
Thick diskExponential $\Sigma \propto e^{-R/R_d}$, scale height $\sim 0.9$ kpcAll disk galaxies — older stars
HI gas diskExtended exponential, $R_{d,\text{gas}} \approx 2.5\,R_{d,\text{star}}$All — neutral hydrogen reservoir
External haloDiffuse stellar halo or HI tailNegligible for SPARC; included for completeness
Decomposition rules: bulge captures $25\%$ of $M_\star$ for early types (Sbc and earlier); the stellar residual splits as 70% thin / 30% thick (Bovy & Rix 2013); gas is total HI corrected for helium (×1.33).

2. Absolute masses per geometric form ($M_\odot$)

# Galaxy Type Bulge Thin disk Thick disk HI gas Halo ext. Total
1CamBIm3.22e+71.38e+72.13e+76.72e+7
2DDO064Im2.87e+71.23e+72.26e+82.67e+8
3ESO444-G084Im3.99e+71.71e+71.60e+82.17e+8
4DDO154Im3.56e+71.53e+76.25e+86.76e+8
5DDO170Im6.65e+72.85e+75.05e+86.00e+8
6DDO168Im1.05e+84.49e+72.79e+84.29e+8
7D631-7Im1.24e+85.31e+75.12e+86.89e+8
8DDO161Im9.31e+73.99e+71.09e+91.22e+9
9F565-V2Im3.96e+71.70e+72.66e+83.23e+8
10F563-V2Im7.98e+73.42e+74.65e+85.80e+8
11F563-V1Im7.92e+73.39e+73.99e+85.12e+8
12F567-2Im1.07e+84.58e+77.98e+89.51e+8
13F568-V1Im1.94e+88.31e+71.06e+91.34e+9
14ESO116-G012Sd1.12e+94.78e+81.60e+93.19e+9
15F561-1Im4.12e+81.77e+81.20e+91.79e+9
16F563-1Im3.21e+81.37e+81.60e+92.05e+9
17F568-3Sd6.93e+82.97e+82.00e+92.98e+9
18F574-1Sd8.55e+83.66e+82.53e+93.75e+9
19F568-1Sd9.01e+83.86e+82.39e+93.68e+9
20NGC3198Sc3.32e+91.42e+91.14e+101.62e+10
21F571-8Sd2.23e+99.54e+82.93e+96.11e+9
22Milky WaySbc1.00e+104.00e+106.00e+91.00e+106.60e+10
23NGC2841Sb5.82e+91.22e+105.24e+91.10e+103.43e+10

Green cells: the two dominant components for each galaxy. Together they account for the bulk of the visible mass and define the wave field’s dominant geometry.

3. Percentages per geometric form

# Galaxy Type %Bulge %Thin %Thick %HI %Halo
1CamBIm47.8%20.5%31.7%
2DDO064Im10.8%4.6%84.6%
3ESO444-G084Im18.4%7.9%73.7%
4DDO154Im5.3%2.3%92.5%
5DDO170Im11.1%4.7%84.2%
6DDO168Im24.4%10.5%65.1%
7D631-7Im18.0%7.7%74.3%
8DDO161Im7.6%3.3%89.1%
9F565-V2Im12.3%5.3%82.5%
10F563-V2Im13.8%5.9%80.3%
11F563-V1Im15.5%6.6%77.9%
12F567-2Im11.2%4.8%83.9%
13F568-V1Im14.5%6.2%79.3%
14ESO116-G012Sd35.0%15.0%50.0%
15F561-1Im23.1%9.9%67.0%
16F563-1Im15.6%6.7%77.7%
17F568-3Sd23.2%9.9%66.8%
18F574-1Sd22.8%9.8%67.4%
19F568-1Sd24.5%10.5%65.0%
20NGC3198Sc20.5%8.8%70.7%
21F571-8Sd36.5%15.6%47.9%
22Milky WaySbc15.2%60.6%9.1%15.2%
23NGC2841Sb17.0%35.6%15.3%32.2%

4. Patterns by galaxy type

  • Two massive Sb/Sbc (Milky Way, NGC2841): dominated by thin disk + bulge, with HI gas contributing $sim 15$–$30%$. Only galaxies with a significant bulge in the sample.
  • NGC3198 (Sc): HI gas + thin disk dominate, no bulge. Gas accounts for $71\%$ of mass.
  • Sd galaxies (F568-1, F571-8, F568-3, F574-1, ESO116-G012): HI gas + thin disk, gas typically $50$–$67\%$. These are the LSB cases that strain BeeTheory most.
  • Im dwarfs (DDO, F-series, CamB, etc.): overwhelmingly HI gas-dominated — gas is $60$–$93\%$ of mass. The thin stellar disk is a minor component.

Key observation

For 21 out of 23 galaxies, the two dominant geometric forms are thin disk + HI gas disk. Only the Milky Way and NGC2841 introduce a third significant component (the bulge). This means that for the wave field calculation, the geometry that matters most is almost always the extended disk pair — and the LSB problem must be solved in this exponential-disk regime.


References. Dutertre, X. — Notes XXIX–XXXIII, BeeTheory.com (2026). · Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., Schombert, J. M. — SPARC, AJ 152, 157 (2016). · Bovy, J., Rix, H.-W. — A direct dynamical measurement of the Milky Way’s disk surface density profile, disk scale length, and dark matter profile at 4 kpc < R < 9 kpc, ApJ 779, 115 (2013). · McMillan, P. J. — The mass distribution and gravitational potential of the Milky Way, MNRAS 465, 76 (2017). · Hernquist, L. — An analytical model for spherical galaxies and bulges, ApJ 356, 359 (1990).

BeeTheory.com — Wave-based quantum gravity · Geometric mass decomposition · © Technoplane S.A.S. 2026