4.7 Article

Overestimated inclinations of Milgromian disc galaxies: the case of the ultradiffuse galaxy AGC 114905

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 513, Issue 3, Pages 3541-3548

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stac1073

Keywords

gravitation; galaxies: dwarf; galaxies: fundamental parameters; galaxies: individual: AGC 114905; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics

Funding

  1. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/V000861/1]
  2. STFC [ST/V000861/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, two hydrodynamical simulations of star-forming galaxies are presented in the framework of Milgromian dynamics (MOND), which show that the observed rotation curve of AGC 114905 is consistent with the MOND prediction. The simulations demonstrate that the isophotes in the face-on view can differ significantly from circular by 50%, which can lead to the overestimation of the inclination between the galactic disk and the sky plane by observers. The actual rotation curve could be much higher than reported by observers, thus reconciling AGC 114905 with MOND expectations.
We present two hydrodynamical star-forming simulations in the Milgromian dynamics (MOND) framework of a gas-rich disc galaxy with properties similar to AGC 114905, which has recently been argued to have a rotation curve (RC) that is inconsistent with the MOND prediction. Our first model considers the galaxy in isolation, while our second model includes an external field of 0.05 a(0), the estimated gravitational field from large-scale structure. We show that isophotes in the face-on view can differ from circular at the 50 per cent level. This could mislead observers into overestimating the inclination i between disc and sky planes. Because RCs require a correction factor of 1/sin i, the actual RC could be much higher than that reported by observers. This plausibly reconciles AGC 114905 with MOND expectations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available