4.7 Article

Galactic rotation curves, the baryon-to-dark-halo-mass relation and space-time scale invariance

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu2099

关键词

gravitation; galaxies: general; galaxies: kinematics and dynamics; galaxies: stellar content

资金

  1. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low-acceleration space-time scale invariant dynamics (SID) predicts two fundamental correlations known from observational galactic dynamics: the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation and a correlation between the observed mass discrepancy and acceleration (MDA) in the low-acceleration regime for disc galaxies. SID corresponds to the deep Modified Newtonian Dynamics limit. The MDA data emerging in cold/warm dark matter (C/WDM) cosmological simulations disagree significantly with the tight MDA correlation of the observed galaxies. Therefore, the most modern simulated disc galaxies, which are delicately selected to have a quiet merging history in a standard dark matter cosmological model, still do not represent the correct rotation curves. Also, the observed tight correlation contradicts the postulated stochastic formation of galaxies in low-mass dark matter haloes. Moreover, we find that SID predicts a baryonic to apparent virial halo (dark matter) mass relation which agrees well with the correlation deduced observationally assuming Newtonian dynamics to be valid, while the baryonic to halo mass relation predicted from CDM models does not. The distribution of the observed ratios of dark matter halo masses to baryonic masses may be empirical evidence for the external field effect, which is predicted in SID as a consequence of the forces acting between two galaxies depending on the position and mass of a third galaxy. Applying the external field effect, we predict the masses of galaxies in the proximity of the dwarf galaxies in the Miller et al. sample. Classical non-relativistic gravitational dynamics is thus best described as being Milgromian, rather than Newtonian.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据