alternative gravity vs. cdm jerry sellwood. settling the argument requires clear predictions that...
Post on 22-Dec-2015
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
Alternative gravity vs. CDM
Jerry Sellwood
Settling the argument
• Requires clear predictions that distinguish one from the other– consistency with one or the other is not enough if
both make similar predictions
• Alternative gravity is more easily falsifiable– e.g. Milgrom predicted TFR for LSBs
• not yet regarded as decisive by the CDM folks
– but predictions must be well-worked out!
WMAP 3-year data
• Rules out all no DM models?
• No!
Falsifiable predictions of AG
• Baryonic mass should be correlated with dynamical mass. Vulnerable to:– one rogue galaxy rotation curve– similar light distributions with very diff. M/L– etc.
• The shape of luminous matter should be reflected in the shape of the mass– no misalignments or offsets, etc.
Other concerns
• Galaxy clusters
• Dwarfs & globular clusters
• Dynamical friction and galaxy mergers
• ….
Challenging CDM
• Gauntlet already thrown down:– TFR for LSBs– Why does MOND work?
• Issues involving gastrophysics are too murky
• Somewhat firm predictions of DM halos– cusp/core issue – still no surrender!– absolute density scale
• But target just moved!– baryon/dark mass fraction– tilted or running spectral index
The greatest challenge to CDM• Spherically averaged density of dark matter halos
seems to approximate the form:
(r) = s rs3 / [r(r+rs)3-]
• i.e. a broken power law, with 1 < < 1.5 = 1 is “NFW”
Concentration
s is directly related to the concentration parameter
c = r200/rs
• c correlates with mass – halos are predicted to be a 1-parameter family (e.g. Bullock et al.)
Halo density
• Dark matter halos are not as dense as predicted
• Plot from Alam et al.v/2 is the mean density
inside the radius at which the DM rotation curve reaches vmax/2
• Points are estimates from real galaxies
• Heavy curve is for NFW and standard CDM
Tilted or running power spectrum
• Zentner & Bullock (2002):
• Lower values of v/2 predicted
– by about a factor 10 in their most extreme model (n.b. 8 0.65)
1 practical difficulty• How much mass
should be assigned to the stars?
• Disk-halo degeneracy
• Low surface-brightness galaxies and dwarfs are more dominated by DM
Measure disk mass dynamically
Measure disk mass dynamically
Magnitude of discrepancy
• Weiner’s work gets around uncertainty in M/L
• Milky Way similar (Binney & Evans 2001)
• Better data are in worse agreement
• Halos are under-dense by factor > 30 for n=1 models> 5 for extreme tilted
power spectra
• assumes =1 and ignores compression!
Effect of halo compression
• Conservative values:– NFW halo
– baryon fraction fb=0.05
– disk scale: rs/Rd=5
• Value of v/2 increased by factor 4
• In Weiner’s cases, it would be a factor > 30(decompression is hard)
Bar-halo friction• Consistent with
Debattista’s work on dynamical friction
• Rlast is Rc/aB when the simulation was stopped
• Rc/aB > 1.4 quickly in high-concentration models
• Bars stay fast for 30 disk rots only if c < 6
Reduce DM density?
• Feedback – Gnedin & Zhao– points vs. dashed– maximum possible
effect – factor 2– for a disk of
reasonable size
Reduce DM density?• Feedback – Gnedin & Zhao
• Binary BHs – Milosavljevic & Merritt– DM particles ejected as the binary hardens– removes about as much mass as the BHs– but only to a radius of a few hundred pc
Reduce DM density?• Feedback – Gnedin & Zhao
• Binary BHs – Milosavljevic & Merritt
• Bars – Weinberg & Katz
Bar-halo interaction• Holley-
Bockelmann, Weinberg & Katz (2005)
• Smaller changes reported by Weinberg & Katz (2006)– argue problem is
very challenging numerically
Density reductions
• 5 skinny, massive bars of different lengths
• flatten the cusp to about 1/3 bar length
• interesting, but unreasonable bar required
Rapid convergence
with N• Use the shortest bar
– 104 N 107
– dotted curve for unequal mass particles
• Number of terms in expansion, fine grid, etc. all make no diff.
• No evidence to support WK05 worries
Weaker bars• Flattening of the cusp occurs only for bars that are both
– strong: axis ratio 4:1 or greater, and
– massive: Mb > 40% of enclosed halo mass
• Sudden change in density – a collective effect• Smaller and more gradual density change for slightly
weaker bars – but over a greater radial range
Maximum effect
• Rigid bar highly artificial– increase MoI by factor 5– more significant density reduction
• Reduction in v/2 is only by 39% in most extreme case– Angular momentum transferred: 0.01– i.e. most of that in the baryons
• And this was for a huge bar (a = rs)
Conclusions
• Best data on halos in galaxies indicate densities lower than LCDM prediction by factor >10– assumes =1 and neglects compression
• No internal dynamical mechanism can reduce the density by much– maximum 40% for most extreme bars– results from careful simulations can be trusted
• Simply cannot unbind the halo– not enough energy can be extracted from the baryons– trying to make the tail wag the dog!