Alternative gravity vs cdm
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 26

Alternative gravity vs. CDM PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 72 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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

Download Presentation

Alternative gravity vs. CDM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Alternative gravity vs cdm

Alternative gravity vs. CDM

Jerry Sellwood


Settling the argument

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

WMAP 3-year data

  • Rules out all no DM models?

  • No!


Falsifiable predictions of ag

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

Other concerns

  • Galaxy clusters

  • Dwarfs & globular clusters

  • Dynamical friction and galaxy mergers

  • ….


Challenging cdm

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

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

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

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

Tilted or running power spectrum

  • Zentner & Bullock (2002):

  • Lower values of v/2predicted

    • by about a factor 10 in their most extreme model (n.b. 8  0.65)


1 practical difficulty

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


Measure disk mass dynamically1

Measure disk mass dynamically


Magnitude of discrepancy

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

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

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

Reduce DM density?

  • Feedback – Gnedin & Zhao

    • points vs. dashed

    • maximum possible effect – factor  2

    • for a disk of reasonable size


Reduce dm density1

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 density2

Reduce DM density?

  • Feedback – Gnedin & Zhao

  • Binary BHs – Milosavljevic & Merritt

  • Bars – Weinberg & Katz


Bar halo interaction

Bar-halo interaction

  • Holley-Bockelmann, Weinberg & Katz (2005)

  • Smaller changes reported by Weinberg & Katz (2006)

    • argue problem is very challenging numerically


Density reductions

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

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

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

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

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!


  • Login