4.7 Article

Fuzzy Dark Matter and Dark Matter Halo Cores

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 904, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb242

关键词

Cold dark matter; Dark matter distribution; Galaxies; Cosmology

资金

  1. Excellence Cluster ORIGINS - Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany s Excellence Strategy [EXC-2094-390783311]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Whereas cold dark matter (CDM) simulations predict central dark matter cusps with densities that diverge as rho(r) similar to 1/r, observations often indicate constant-density cores with finite central densities rho(0) and a flat density distribution within a core radius r(0). This paper investigates whether this core-cusp problem can be solved by fuzzy dark matter (FDM), a hypothetical particle with a mass of the order of m approximate to 10(-22) eV and a corresponding de Broglie wavelength on astrophysical scales. We show that galaxies with CDM halo virial masses M-vir <= 10(11) M-circle dot follow two core-scaling relations. In addition to the well-known universal core column density Sigma(0) equivalent to rho(0) x r(0) = 75 M-circle dot pc(-2), core radii increase with virial masses as r(0) similar to M-vir(gamma) with gamma of order unity. Using the simulations by Schive et al. we demonstrate that FDM can explain the r(0)-M-vir scaling relation if the virial masses of the observed galaxy sample scale with the formation redshift z as M-vir similar to (1 + z)(-0.4). The observed constant Sigma(0) is however in complete disagreement with FDM cores which are characterized by a steep dependence Sigma(0) similar to r(0)(-3), independent of z. More high-resolution simulations are now required to confirm the simulations of Schive et al. and explore the transition region between the soliton core and the surrounding halo. If these results hold, FDM can be ruled out as the origin of observed dark matter cores and other physical processes are required to account for their formation.

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