4.6 Article

Tests of modified gravity with dwarf galaxies

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2011/10/032

关键词

modified gravity; dwarfs galaxies

资金

  1. NSF [AST-0908027]
  2. DOE [DE-FG02-95ER40893]
  3. Division Of Astronomical Sciences
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [0908027] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In modified gravity theories that seek to explain cosmic acceleration, dwarf galaxies in low density environments can be subject to enhanced forces. The class of scalar-tensor theories, which includes f(R) gravity, predict such a force enhancement (massive galaxies like the Milky Way can evade it through a screening mechanism that protects the interior of the galaxy from this fifth force). We study observable deviations from GR in the disks of late-type dwarf galaxies moving under gravity. The fifth-force acts on the dark matter and HI gas disk, but not on the stellar disk owing to the self-screening of main sequence stars. We find four distinct observable effects in such disk galaxies: 1. A displacement of the stellar disk from the HI disk. 2. Warping of the stellar disk along the direction of the external force. 3. Enhancement of the rotation curve measured from the HI gas compared to that of the stellar disk. 4. Asymmetry in the rotation curve of the stellar disk. We estimate that the spatial effects can be up to 1 kpc and the rotation velocity effects about 10 km/s in infalling dwarf galaxies. Such deviations are measurable: we expect that with a careful analysis of a sample of nearby dwarf galaxies one can improve astrophysical constraints on gravity theories by over three orders of magnitude, and even solar system constraints by one order of magnitude. Thus effective tests of gravity along the lines suggested by Hui, Nicolis, and Stubbs (2009) and Jain (2011) can be carried out with low-redshift galaxies, though care must be exercised in understanding possible complications from astrophysical effects.

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

4.6
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