Dwarf Galaxies on the Shoulders of Giants

The week of June 5, 2017, we held a workshop on dwarf galaxies and the dark matter problem. The workshop was attended by many leaders in the field – giants of dwarf galaxy research. It was held on the campus of Case Western Reserve University and supported by the John Templeton Foundation. It resulted in many fascinating discussions which I can’t possibly begin to share in full here, but I’ll say a few words.

Dwarf galaxies are among the most dark matter dominated objects in the universe. Or, stated more properly, they exhibit the largest mass discrepancies. This makes them great places to test theories of dark matter and modified gravity. By the end, we had come up with a few important tests for both ΛCDM and MOND. A few of these we managed to put on a white board. These are hardly a complete list, but provide a basis for discussion.

First, ΛCDM.

LCDM_whiteboard — A few issues for ΛCDM identified during the workshop.

UFDs in field: Over the past few years, a number of extremely tiny dwarf galaxies have been identified as satellites of the Milky Way galaxy. These “ultrafaint dwarfs” are vaguely defined as being fainter than 100,000 solar luminosities, with the smallest examples having only a few hundred stars. This is absurdly small by galactic standards, having the stellar content of individual star clusters within the Milky Way. Indeed, it is not obvious to me that all of the ultrafaint dwarfs deserve to be recognized as dwarf galaxies, as some may merely be fragmentary portions of the Galactic stellar halo composed of stars coincident in phase space. Nevertheless, many may well be stellar systems external to the Milky Way that orbit it as dwarf satellites.

That multitudes of minuscule dark matter halos exist is a fundamental prediction of the ΛCDM cosmogony. These should often contain ultrafaint dwarf galaxies, and not only as satellites of giant galaxies like the Milky Way. Indeed, one expects to see many ultrafaints in the “field” beyond the orbital vicinity of the Milky Way where we have found them so far. These are predicted to exist in great numbers, and contain uniformly old stars. The “old stars” portion of the prediction stems from the reionization of the universe impeding star formation in the smallest dark matter halos. Upcoming surveys like LSST should provide a test of this prediction.

From an empirical perspective, I do expect that we will continue to discover galaxies of ever lower luminosity and surface brightness. In the field, I expect that these will be predominantly gas rich dwarfs like Leo P rather than gas-free, old stellar systems like the satellite ultrafaints. My expectation is an extrapolation of past experience, not a theory-specific prediction.

No Large Cores: Many of the simulators present at the workshop showed that if the energy released by supernovae was well directed, it could reshape the steep (‘cuspy’) interior density profiles of dark matter halos into something more like the shallow (‘cored’) interiors that are favored by data. I highlight the if because I remain skeptical that supernova energy couples as strongly as required and assumed (basically 100%). Even assuming favorable feedback, there seemed to be broad (in not unanimous) consensus among the simulators present that at sufficiently low masses, not enough stars would form to produce the requisite energy. Consequently, low mass halos should not have shallow cores, but instead retain their primordial density cusps. Hence clear measurement of a large core in a low mass dwarf galaxy (stellar mass < 1 million solar masses) would be a serious problem. Unfortunately, I’m not clear that we quantified “large,” but something more than a few hundred parsecs should qualify.

Radial Orbit for Crater 2: Several speakers highlighted the importance of the recently discovered dwarf satellite Crater 2. This object has a velocity dispersion that is unexpectedly low in ΛCDM, but was predicted by MOND. The “fix” in ΛCDM is to imagine that Crater 2 has suffered a large amount of tidal stripping by a close passage of the Milky Way. Hence it is predicted to be on a radial orbit (one that basically just plunges in and out). This can be tested by measuring the proper motion of its stars with Hubble Space Telescope, for which there exists a recently approved program.

DM Substructures: As noted above, there must exist numerous low mass dark matter halos in the cold dark matter cosmogony. These may be detected as substructure in the halos of larger galaxies by means of their gravitational lensing even if they do not contain dwarf galaxies. Basically, a lumpy dark matter halo bends light in subtly but detectably different ways from a smooth halo.

No Wide Binaries in UFDs: As a consequence of dynamical friction against the background dark matter, binary stars cannot remain at large separations over a Hubble time: their orbits should decay. In the absence of dark matter, this should not happen (it cannot if there is nowhere for the orbital energy to go, like into dark matter particles). Thus the detection of a population of widely separated binary stars would be problematic. Indeed, Pavel Kroupa argued that the apparent absence of strong dynamical friction already excludes particle dark matter as it is usually imagined.

Short dynamical times/common mergers: This is related to dynamical friction. In the hierarchical cosmogony of cold dark matter, mergers of halos (and the galaxies they contain) must be frequent and rapid. Dark matter halos are dynamically sticky, soaking up the orbital energy and angular momentum between colliding galaxies to allow them to stick and merge. Such mergers should go to completion on fairly short timescales (a mere few hundred million years).

MOND

A few distinctive predictions for MOND were also identified.

Tangential Orbit for Crater 2: In contrast to ΛCDM, we expect that the `feeble giant’ Crater 2 could not survive a close encounter with the Milky Way. Even at its rather large distance of 120 kpc from the Milky Way, it is so feeble that it is not immune from the external field of its giant host. Consequently, we expect that Crater 2 must be on a more nearly circular orbit, and not on a radial orbit as suggested in ΛCDM. The orbit does not need to be perfectly circular of course, but is should be more tangential than radial.

This provides a nice test that distinguishes between the two theories. Either the orbit of Crater 2 is more radial or more tangential. Bear in mind that Crater 2 already constitutes a problem for ΛCDM. What we’re discussing here is how to close what is basically a loophole whereby we can excuse an otherwise unanticipated result in ΛCDM.

EFE: The External Field Effect is a unique prediction of MOND that breaks the strong equivalence principle. There is already clear if tentative evidence for the EFE in the dwarf satellite galaxies around Andromeda. There is no equivalent to the EFE in ΛCDM.

I believe the question mark was added on the white board to permit the logical if unlikely possibility that one could write a MOND theory with an undetectably small EFE.

Position of UFDs on RAR: We chose to avoid making the radial acceleration relation (RAR) a focus of the meeting – there was quite enough to talk about as it was – but it certainly came up. The ultrafaint dwarfs sit “too high” on the RAR, an apparent problem for MOND. Indeed, when I first worked on this subject with Joe Wolf, I initially thought this was a fatal problem for MOND.

My initial thought was wrong. This is not a problem for MOND. The RAR applies to systems in dynamical equilibrium. There is a criterion in MOND to check whether this essential condition may be satisfied. Basically all of the ultrafaints flunk this test. There is no reason to think they are in dynamical equilibrium, so no reason to expect that they should be exactly on the RAR.

Some advocates of ΛCDM seemed to think this was a fudge, a lame excuse morally equivalent to the fudges made in ΛCDM that its critics complain about. This is a false equivalency that reminds me of this cartoon:

hqdefault — I dare ya to step over this line!

The ultrafaints are a handful of the least-well measured galaxies on the RAR. Before we obsess about these, it is necessary to provide a satisfactory explanation for the more numerous, much better measured galaxies that establish the RAR in the first place. MOND does this. ΛCDM does not. Holding one theory to account for the least reliable of measurements before holding another to account for everything up to that point is like, well, like the cartoon… I could put an NGC number to each of the lines Bugs draws in the sand.

Long dynamical times/less common mergers: Unlike ΛCDM, dynamical friction should be relatively ineffective in MOND. It lacks the large halos of dark matter that act as invisible catchers’ mitts to make galaxies stick and merge. Personally, I do not think this is a great test, because we are a long way from understanding dynamical friction in MOND.

Non-evolution with redshift: If the Baryonic Tully-Fisher relation and the RAR are indeed the consequence of MOND, then their form is fixed by the theory. Consequently, their slope shouldn’t evolve with time. Conceivably their normalization might (e.g., the value of a₀ could in principle evolve). Some recent data for high redshift galaxies place constraints on such evolution, but reports on these data are greatly exaggerated.

These are just a few of the topics discussed at the workshop, and all of those are only a few of the issues that matter to the bigger picture. While the workshop was great in every respect, perhaps the best thing was that it got people from different fields/camps/perspectives talking. That is progress.

I am grateful for progress, but I must confess that to me it feels excruciatingly slow. Models of galaxy formation in the context of ΛCDM have made credible steps forward in addressing some of the phenomenological issues that concern me. Yet they still seem to me to be very far from where they need to be. In particular, there seems to be no engagement with the fundamental question I have posed here before, and that I posed at the beginning of the workshop: Why does MOND get any predictions right?

Degenerating problemshift: a wedged paradigm in great tightness

Reading Merritt’s paper on the philosophy of cosmology, I was struck by a particular quote from Lakatos:

A research programme is said to be progressing as long as its theoretical growth anticipates its empirical growth, that is as long as it keeps predicting novel facts with some success (“progressive problemshift”); it is stagnating if its theoretical growth lags behind its empirical growth, that is as long as it gives only post-hoc explanations either of chance discoveries or of facts anticipated by, and discovered in, a rival programme (“degenerating problemshift”) (Lakatos, 1971, pp. 104–105).

The recent history of modern cosmology is rife with post-hoc explanations of unanticipated facts. The cusp-core problem and the missing satellites problem are prominent examples. These are explained after the fact by invoking feedback, a vague catch-all that many people agree solves these problems even though none of them agree on how it actually works.

FeedbackCartoonSilkMamon — Cartoon of the feedback explanation for the difference between the galaxy luminosity function (blue line) and the halo mass function (red line). From Silk & Mamon (2012).

There are plenty of other problems. To name just a few: satellite planes (unanticipated correlations in phase space), the emptiness of voids, and the early formation of structure (see section 4 of Famaey & McGaugh for a longer list and section 6 of Silk & Mamon for a positive spin on our list). Each problem is dealt with in a piecemeal fashion, often by invoking solutions that contradict each other while buggering the principle of parsimony.

It goes like this. A new observation is made that does not align with the concordance cosmology. Hands are wrung. Debate is had. Serious concern is expressed. A solution is put forward. Sometimes it is reasonable, sometimes it is not. In either case it is rapidly accepted so long as it saves the paradigm and prevents the need for serious thought. (“Oh, feedback does that.”) The observation is no longer considered a problem through familiarity and exhaustion of patience with the debate, regardless of how [un]satisfactory the proffered solution is. The details of the solution are generally forgotten (if ever learned). When the next problem appears the process repeats, with the new solution often contradicting the now-forgotten solution to the previous problem.

This has been going on for so long that many junior scientists now seem to think this is how science is suppose to work. It is all they’ve experienced. And despite our claims to be interested in fundamental issues, most of us are impatient with re-examining issues that were thought to be settled. All it takes is one bold assertion that everything is OK, and the problem is perceived to be solved whether it actually is or not.

8631e895433bc3d1fa87e3d857fc7500 — *“Is there any more?”*

That is the process we apply to little problems. The Big Problems remain the post hoc elements of dark matter and dark energy. These are things we made up to explain unanticipated phenomena. That we need to invoke them immediately casts the paradigm into what Lakatos called degenerating problemshift. Once we’re there, it is hard to see how to get out, given our propensity to overindulge in the honey that is the infinity of free parameters in dark matter models.

Note that there is another aspect to what Lakatos said about facts anticipated by, and discovered in, a rival programme. Two examples spring immediately to mind: the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation and the Radial Acceleration Relation. These are predictions of MOND that were unanticipated in the conventional dark matter picture. Perhaps we can come up with post hoc explanations for them, but that is exactly what Lakatos would describe as degenerating problemshift. The rival programme beat us to it.

In my experience, this is a good description of what is going on. The field of dark matter has stagnated. Experimenters look harder and harder for the same thing, repeating the same experiments in hope of a different result. Theorists turn knobs on elaborate models, gifting themselves new free parameters every time they get stuck.

On the flip side, MOND keeps predicting novel facts with some success, so it remains in the stage of progressive problemshift. Unfortunately, MOND remains incomplete as a theory, and doesn’t address many basic issues in cosmology. This is a different kind of unsatisfactory.

In the mean time, I’m still waiting to hear a satisfactory answer to the question I’ve been posing for over two decades now. Why does MOND get any predictions right? It has had many a priori predictions come true. Why does this happen? It shouldn’t. Ever.

Declining Rotation Curves at High Redshift?

A recent paper in Nature by Genzel et al. reports declining rotation curves for high redshift galaxies. I have been getting a lot of questions about this result, which would be very important if true. So I thought I’d share a few thoughts here.

Nature is a highly reputable journal – in most fields of science. In Astronomy, it has a well earned reputation as the place to publish sexy but incorrect results. They have been remarkably consistent about this, going back to my earliest grad school memories, like a quasar pair being interpreted as a wide gravitational lens indicating the existence of cosmic strings. This was sexy at that time, because cosmic strings were thought to be a likely by-product of cosmic Inflation, threading the universe with remnants of the Inflationary phase. Cool, huh? Many Big Names signed on to this Exciting Discovery, which was Widely Discussed at the time. The only problem was that it was complete nonsense.

Genzel et al. look likely to build on this reputation. In Astronomy, we are always chasing the undiscovered, which often means the most distant. This is a wonderful thing: the universe is practically infinite; there is always something new to discover. An occasional downside is the temptation to over-interpret and oversell data on the edge.

Lets start with some historical perspective. Here is the position-velocity diagram of NGC 7331 as measured by Rubin et al. (1965):

The rotation curve goes up, then it goes down. One would not claim the discovery of flat rotation curves from these data.

Here is the modern rotation curve of the same galaxy:

As the data improved, the flattening became clear. In order to see this, you need to observe to large radius. The original data didn’t do that. It isn’t necessarily wrong; it just doesn’t go far enough out.

Now lets look at the position-velocity diagrams published by Genzel et al.:

They go up, they go down. This is the normal morphology of the rotation curves of bright, high surface brightness galaxies. First they rise steeply, then they roll over, then they decline slowly and gradually flatten out.

It looks to me like the Genzel el al. data do the first two things. They go up. They roll over. Maybe they start to come down a tiny bit. Maybe. They simply do not extend far enough to see the flattening, if it is there. Their claim that the rotation curves are falling is not persuasive: this is asking more of the data than is warranted. Historically, there are many examples of claims of “declining” rotation curves. DDO 154 is one famous example. These claims were not very persuasive at the time, and did not survive closer examination.

I have developed the habit of looking at the data before I read the text of a paper. I did that in this case, and saw what I expected to see from years of experience working on low redshift galaxies. I wasn’t surprised until I read the text as saw the claim that these galaxies somehow differed from those at low redshift.

It takes some practice to look at the data without being influenced by lines drawn to misguide the eye. That’s what the model lines drawn in red do. I don’t have access to the data, so I can’t re-plot them without those lines. So instead I have added, by eye, a crude estimate of what I would expect for galaxies like this. In most cases, the data do not distinguish between falling and flat rotation curves. In the case labeled 33h, the data look slightly more consistent with a flat rotation curve. In 10h, they look slightly more consistent with a falling rotation curve. That appearance is mostly driven by the outermost point with large error bars on the approaching side. Taken literally, this velocity is unphysical: it declines faster than Keplerian. They interpret this in terms of thick disks, but it could be a clue that Something is Wrong.

The basic problem is that the high redshift data do not extend to large radii. They simply do not go far enough out to distinguish between flat and declining rotation curves. Most do not extend beyond 10 kpc. If we plot the data for NGC 7331 with R < 10 kpc, we get this:

Here I’ve plotted both sides in order to replicate the appearance of Genzel’s plots. I’ve also included an exponential disk model in red. Never mind that this is a lousy representation of the true mass model. It gives a good fit, no?

The rotation curve is clearly declining. Unless you observe further out:

The data of Genzel et al. do not allow us to distinguish between “normal” flat rotation curves and genuinely declining ones.

This is just taking the data as presented. I have refrained from making methodological criticisms, and will continue to do so. I will only note that it is possible to make a considerably more sophisticated, 3D analysis. Di Teodoro et al. (2016) have done this for very similar data. They find much lower velocity dispersions (not the thick disks claimed by Genzel et al.) and flat rotation curves:

There is no guarantee that the same results will follow for the Genzel et al. data, but it would be nice to see the same 3D analysis techniques applied.

Since I am unpersuaded that the Genzel et al. data extend far enough out to test for flat rotation, I looked for a comparison that I could make so far as the data do go. Fig. 3 of Genzel et al. shows the dark matter fraction as a function of circular velocity. This contains the same information as Fig. 12 of McGaugh (2016), which I re-plot here in terms of the dark matter fraction:

fDM_Genzel — The dark matter fraction for the local galaxies (gray circles) discussed in McGaugh (2016) as a function of circular velocity (left) and surface density (right). The star is the Milky Way. Blue points with red circles are the data of Genzel et al. The left panel is equivalent to their Fig. 3.

The data of Genzel et al. follow the trends established by local galaxies. They are confined to the bright, high surface brightness end of these relations, but that is to be expected: the brightest galaxies are always the most readily observed, especially at high redshift.

Genzel et al. only plot the left panel. As I have shown many times before, the strongest correlation of dynamical-to-baryonic mass is with surface brightness, not mass or its proxies luminosity and circular velocity. This is an essential aspect of the mass discrepancy problem; it is unfortunate that many scientists working on the topic appear to remain unaware of this basic fact.

From these diagrams, I infer that there is no discernible evolution in the properties of bright galaxies out to high redshift (z = 2.4 for their most distant case). The data presented by Genzel et al. sit exactly where one would expect from the relations established by local galaxies. That in itself might seem surprising, and perhaps warrants a Letter to Nature. But most of the words in Genzel et al. are about a surprising sort of evolution in which galaxy rotation curves decline at high redshift, so they have less dark matter then than now. I do not see that their data sustain such an interpretation.

So far everything I have said is empirical. If I put on a theory hat, the claims of Genzel et al. persist in making no sense.

First, ΛCDM. Fundamental to the ΛCDM cosmogony is the notion that dark matter halos form first, with baryons falling in subsequently. It has to happen in that order to satisfy the constraints on the growth of structure from the cosmic microwave background. The temperature fluctuations in the CMB are small because the baryons haven’t yet been able to clump up. In order for them to form galaxies as quickly as observed, the dark matter must already be forming the seeds of dark matter halos for the baryons to subsequently fall into. Without this order of battle, our explanation of structure formation is out the window.

Next, MOND. If rotation curves are indeed falling as claimed, this would falsify MOND, or at least make it a phenomenon that only applies in the local universe. But, as discussed, the high-z galaxies look like local ones. That doesn’t falsify MOND; it rather encourages the basic picture of structure formation we have in that context: galaxies form early and settle down into the form the modified force law stipulates. Indeed, the apparent lack of evolution implies that Milgrom’s acceleration constant a₀ is indeed constant, and does not vary (as sometimes speculated) in concert with the expansion rate as hinted at by the numerical coincidence a₀ ~ cH₀. I cannot place a meaningful limit on the evolution of a₀ from the data as presented, but it appears to be small. Rather than falsifying MOND, the high-z data look to be consistent with it – so far as they go.

So, in summary: the data at high redshift appear completely consistent with those at low redshift. The claim of falling rotation curves would be problematic to both ΛCDM and MOND. However, this claim is not persuasive – the data simply do not extend far enough out.

Early 21st century technology has enabled us to do at high redshift what could barely be done at low redshift in the mid-20th century. That’s impressive. But these high-z data look a lot like low-z data circa 1970. A lot has changed since then. Right now, for the exploration of the high redshift universe, I will borrow one of Vera Rubin’s favorite phrases: These are Early Days.

Crater 2: the Bullet Cluster of LCDM

Recently I have been complaining about the low standards to which science has sunk. It has become normal to be surprised by an observation, express doubt about the data, blame the observers, slowly let it sink in, bicker and argue for a while, construct an unsatisfactory model that sort-of, kind-of explains the surprising data but not really, call it natural, then pretend like that’s what we expected all along. This has been going on for so long that younger scientists might be forgiven if they think this is how science is suppose to work. It is not.

At the root of the scientific method is hypothesis testing through prediction and subsequent observation. Ideally, the prediction comes before the experiment. The highest standard is a prediction made before the fact in ignorance of the ultimate result. This is incontrovertibly superior to post-hoc fits and hand-waving explanations: it is how we’re suppose to avoid playing favorites.

I predicted the velocity dispersion of Crater 2 in advance of the observation, for both ΛCDM and MOND. The prediction for MOND is reasonably straightforward. That for ΛCDM is fraught. There is no agreed method by which to do this, and it may be that the real prediction is that this sort of thing is not possible to predict.

The reason it is difficult to predict the velocity dispersions of specific, individual dwarf satellite galaxies in ΛCDM is that the stellar mass-halo mass relation must be strongly non-linear to reconcile the steep mass function of dark matter sub-halos with their small observed numbers. This is closely related to the M_*-M_halo relation found by abundance matching. The consequence is that the luminosity of dwarf satellites can change a lot for tiny changes in halo mass.

apj374168f11_lr — Fig. 11 from Tollerud et al. (2011, ApJ, 726, 108). The width of the bands illustrates the minimal scatter expected between dark halo and measurable properties. A dwarf of a given luminosity could reside in dark halos differing be two decades in mass, with a corresponding effect on the velocity dispersion.

Long story short, the nominal expectation for ΛCDM is a lot of scatter. Photometrically identical dwarfs can live in halos with very different velocity dispersions. The trend between mass, luminosity, and velocity dispersion is so weak that it might barely be perceptible. The photometric data should not be predictive of the velocity dispersion.

It is hard to get even a ballpark answer that doesn’t make reference to other measurements. Empirically, there is some correlation between size and velocity dispersion. This “predicts” σ = 17 km/s. That is not a true theoretical prediction; it is just the application of data to anticipate other data.

Abundance matching relations provide a highly uncertain estimate. The first time I tried to do this, I got unphysical answers (σ = 0.1 km/s, which is less than the stars alone would cause without dark matter – about 0.5 km/s). The application of abundance matching requires extrapolation of fits to data at high mass to very low mass. Extrapolating the M_*-M_halo relation over many decades in mass is very sensitive to the low mass slope of the fitted relation, so it depends on which one you pick.

Since my first pick did not work, lets go with the value suggested to me by James Bullock: σ = 11 km/s. That is the mid-value (the blue lines in the figure above); the true value could easily scatter higher or lower. Very hard to predict with any precision. But given the luminosity and size of Crater 2, we expect numbers like 11 or 17 km/s.

The measured velocity dispersion is σ = 2.7 ± 0.3 km/s.

This is incredibly low. Shockingly so, considering the enormous size of the system (1 kpc half light radius). The NFW halos predicted by ΛCDM don’t do that.

To illustrate how far off this is, I have adopted this figure from Boylan-Kolchin et al. (2012).

mbkplusdwarfswcraterii — Fig. 1 of MNRAS, 422, 1203 illustrating the “too big to fail” problem: observed dwarfs have lower velocity dispersions than sub-halos that must exist and should host similar or even more luminous dwarfs that apparently do not exist. I have had to extend the range of the original graph to lower velocities in order to include Crater 2.

Basically, NFW halos, including the sub-halos imagined to host dwarf satellite galaxies, have rotation curves that rise rapidly and stay high in proportion to the cube root of the halo mass. This property makes it very challenging to explain a low velocity at a large radius: exactly the properties observed in Crater 2.

Lets not fail to appreciate how extremely wrong this is. The original version of the graph above stopped at 5 km/s. It didn’t extend to lower values because they were absurd. There was no reason to imagine that this would be possible. Indeed, the point of their paper was that the observed dwarf velocity dispersions were already too low. To get to lower velocity, you need an absurdly low mass sub-halo – around 10⁷ M_☉. In contrast, the usual inference of masses for sub-halos containing dwarfs of similar luminosity is around 10⁹ M_☉to 10¹⁰ M_☉. So the low observed velocity dispersion – especially at such a large radius – seems nigh on impossible.

More generally, there is no way in ΛCDM to predict the velocity dispersions of particular individual dwarfs. There is too much intrinsic scatter in the highly non-linear relation between luminosity and halo mass. Given the photometry, all we can say is “somewhere in this ballpark.” Making an object-specific prediction is impossible.

Except that it is possible. I did it. In advance.

The predicted velocity dispersion is σ = 2.1 +0.9/-0.6 km/s.

I’m an equal opportunity scientist. In addition to ΛCDM, I also considered MOND. The successful prediction is that of MOND. (The quoted uncertainty reflects the uncertainty in the stellar mass-to-light ratio.) The difference is that MOND makes a specific prediction for every individual object. And it comes true. Again.

MOND is a funny theory. The amplitude of the mass discrepancy it induces depends on how low the acceleration of a system is. If Crater 2 were off by itself in the middle of intergalactic space, MOND would predict it should have a velocity dispersion of about 4 km/s.

But Crater 2 is not isolated. It is close enough to the Milky Way that there is an additional, external acceleration imposed by the Milky Way. The net result is that the acceleration isn’t quite as low as it would be were Crater 2 al by its lonesome. Consequently, the predicted velocity dispersion is a measly 2 km/s. As observed.

In MOND, this is called the External Field Effect (EFE). Theoretically, the EFE is rather disturbing, as it breaks the Strong Equivalence Principle. In particular, Local Position Invariance in gravitational experiments is violated: the velocity dispersion of a dwarf satellite depends on whether it is isolated from its host or not. Weak equivalence (the universality of free fall) and the Einstein Equivalence Principle (which excludes gravitational experiments) may still hold.

We identified several pairs of photometrically identical dwarfs around Andromeda. Some are subject to the EFE while others are not. We see the predicted effect of the EFE: isolated dwarfs have higher velocity dispersions than their twins afflicted by the EFE.

If it is just a matter of sub-halo mass, the current location of the dwarf should not matter. The velocity dispersion certainly should not depend on the bizarre MOND criterion for whether a dwarf is affected by the EFE or not. It isn’t a simple distance-dependency. It depends on the ratio of internal to external acceleration. A relatively dense dwarf might still behave as an isolated system close to its host, while a really diffuse one might be affected by the EFE even when very remote.

When Crater 2 was first discovered, I ground through the math and tweeted the prediction. I didn’t want to write a paper for just one object. However, I eventually did so because I realized that Crater 2 is important as an extreme example of a dwarf so diffuse that it is affected by the EFE despite being very remote (120 kpc from the Milky Way). This is not easy to reproduce any other way. Indeed, MOND with the EFE is the only way that I am aware of whereby it is possible to predict, in advance, the velocity dispersion of this particular dwarf.

If I put my ΛCDM hat back on, it gives me pause that any method can make this prediction. As discussed above, this shouldn’t be possible. There is too much intrinsic scatter in the halo mass-luminosity relation.

If we cook up an explanation for the radial acceleration relation, we still can’t make this prediction. The RAR fit we obtained empirically predicts 4 km/s. This is indistinguishable from MOND for isolated objects. But the RAR itself is just an empirical law – it provides no reason to expect deviations, nor how to predict them. MOND does both, does it right, and has done so before, repeatedly. In contrast, the acceleration of Crater 2 is below the minimum allowed in ΛCDM according to Navarro et al.

For these reasons I consider Crater 2 to be the bullet cluster of ΛCDM. Just as the bullet cluster seems like a straight-up contradiction to MOND, so too does Crater 2 for ΛCDM. It is something ΛCDM really can’t do. The difference is that you can just look at the bullet cluster. With Crater 2 you actually have to understand MOND as well as ΛCDM, and think it through.

So what can we do to save ΛCDM?

Whatever it takes, per usual.

One possibility is that Crater II may represent the “bright” tip of the extremely low surface brightness “stealth” fossils predicted by Bovill & Ricotti. Their predictions are encouraging for getting the size and surface brightness in the right ballpark. But I see no reason in this context to expect such a low velocity dispersion. They anticipate dispersions consistent with the ΛCDM discussion above, and correspondingly high mass-to-light ratios that are greater than observed for Crater 2 (M/L ≈ 10⁴ rather than ~50).

A plausible suggestion I heard was from James Bullock. While noting that reionization should preclude the existence of galaxies in halos below 5 km/s, as we need for Crater 2, he suggested that tidal stripping could reduce an initially larger sub-halo to this point. I am dubious about this, as my impression from the simulations of Penarrubia was that the outer regions of the sub-halo were stripped first while leaving the inner regions (where the NFW cusp predicts high velocity dispersions) largely intact until near complete dissolution. In this context, it is important to bear in mind that the low velocity dispersion of Crater 2 is observed at large radii (1 kpc, not tens of pc). Still, I can imagine ways in which this might be made to work in this particular case, depending on its orbit. Tony Sohn has an HST program to measure the proper motion; this should constrain whether the object has ever passed close enough to the center of the Milky Way to have been tidally disrupted.

Josh Bland-Hawthorn pointed out to me that he made simulations that suggest a halo with a mass as low as 10⁷ M_☉could make stars before reionization and retain them. This contradicts much of the conventional wisdom outlined above because they find a much lower (and in my opinion, more realistic) feedback efficiency for supernova feedback than assumed in most other simulations. If this is correct (as it may well be!) then it might explain Crater 2, but it would wreck all the feedback-based explanations given for all sorts of other things in ΛCDM, like the missing satellite problem and the cusp-core problem. We can’t have it both ways.

maxresdefault — Without super-efficient supernova feedback, the Local Group would be filled with a million billion ultrafaint dwarf galaxies!

I’m sure people will come up with other clever ideas. These will inevitably be ad hoc suggestions cooked up in response to a previously inconceivable situation. This will ring hollow to me until we explain why MOND can predict anything right at all.

In the case of Crater 2, it isn’t just a matter of retrospectively explaining the radial acceleration relation. One also has to explain why exceptions to the RAR occur following the very specific, bizarre, and unique EFE formulation of MOND. If I could do that, I would have done so a long time ago.

No matter what we come up with, the best we can hope to do is a post facto explanation of something that MOND predicted correctly in advance. Can that be satisfactory?

Reckless disregard for the scientific method

There has been another attempt to explain away the radial acceleration relation as being fine in ΛCDM. That’s good; I’m glad people are finally starting to address this issue. But lets be clear: this is a beginning, not a solution. Indeed, it seems more like a rush to create truth by assertion than an honest scientific investigation. I would be more impressed if these papers were (i) refereed rather than rushed onto the arXiv, and (ii) honestly addressed the requirements I laid out.

This latest paper complains about IC 2574 not falling on the radial acceleration relation. This is the galaxy that I just pointed out (about the same time they must have been posting the preprint) does adhere to the relation. So, I guess post-factual reality has come to science.

Rather than consider the assertions piecemeal, lets take a step back. We have established that galaxies obey a single effective force law. Federico Lelli has shown that this applies to pressure supported elliptical galaxies as well as rotating disks.

rar_todo_raronly — The radial acceleration relation, including pressure supported early type galaxies and dwarf Spheroidals.

Lets start with what Newton said about the solar system: “Everything happens… as if the force between two bodies is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.” Knowing how this story turns out, consider the following.

Suppose someone came to you and told you Newton was wrong. The solar system doesn’t operate on an inverse square law, it operates on an inverse cube law. It just looks like an inverse square law because there is dark matter arranged just so as to make this so. No matter whether we look at the motion of the planets around the sun, or moons around their planets, or any of the assorted miscellaneous asteroids and cometary debris. Everything happens as if there is an inverse square law, when really it is an inverse cube law plus dark matter arranged just so.

Would you believe this assertion?

I hope not. It is a gross violation of the rule of parsimony. Occam would spin in his grave.

Yet this is exactly what we’re doing with dark matter halos. There is one observed, effective force law in galaxies. The dark matter has to be arranged just so as to make this so.

Convenient that it is invisible.

Maybe dark matter will prove to be correct, but there is ample reason to worry. I worry that we have not yet detected it. We are well past the point that we should have. The supersymmetric sector in which WIMP dark matter is hypothesized to live flunked the “golden test” of the B_s meson decay, and looks more and more like a brilliant idea nature declined to implement. And I wonder why the radial acceleration relation hasn’t been predicted before if it is such a “natural” outcome of galaxy formation simulations. Are we doing fair science here? Or just trying to shove the cat back in the bag?

I really don’t know what the final answer will look like. But I’ve talked to a lot of scientists who seem pretty darn sure. If you are sure you know the final answer, then you are violating some basic principles of the scientific method: the principle of parsimony, the principle of doubt, and the principle of objectivity. Mind your confirmation bias!

That’ll do for now. What wonders await among tomorrow’s arXiv postings?

Going in Circles

Sam: This looks strangely familiar.

Frodo: That’s because we’ve been here before. We’re going in circles!

Last year, Oman et al. published a paper entitled “The unexpected diversity of dwarf galaxy rotation curves”. This term, diversity, has gained some traction among the community of scientists who simulate the formation of galaxies. From my perspective, this terminology captures some of the story, but misses most of it.

Lets review.

mr-peabody-sherman-1960s — Set the Wayback Machine, Mr. Peabody!

It was established (by van Albada & Sancisi and by Kent) in the ’80s that rotation curves were generally well described as maximal disks: the inner rotation curve was dominated by the stars, with a gradual transition to the flat outer part which required dark matter. By that time, I had became interested in low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies, which had not been studied in such detail. My nominal expectation was that LSB galaxies were stretched out versions of more familiar spiral galaxies. As such they’d also have maximal disks, but lower peak velocities (since V² ≈ GM/R and LSBs had larger R for the same M).

By the mid-1990s, we had shown that this was not the case. LSB galaxies had the same rotation velocity as more concentrated galaxies of the same luminosity. This meant that LSB galaxies were dark matter dominated. This result is now widely known (to the point that it is often taken for granted), but it had not been expected. One interesting consequence was that LSB galaxies were a convenient laboratory for testing the dark matter hypothesis.

So what do we expect? There were, and are, many ideas for what dark matter should do. One of the leading hypotheses to emerge (around the same time) was the NFW halo obtained from structure formation simulations using cold dark matter. If a galaxy is dark matter dominated, then to a good approximation we expect the stars to act as tracer particles: the rotation curve should just reflect that of the underlying dark matter halo.

This did not turn out well. The rotation curves of low surface brightness galaxies do not look like NFW halos. One example is provided by the LSB galaxy F583-1, reproduced here from Fig. 14 of McGaugh & de Blok (1998).

f5831fig14mdb98a — The rotation curve of LSB galaxy F583-1 (filled points) as reported in McGaugh & de Blok (1998). Open points are what is left after subtracting the contribution of the stars and the gas: this is the rotation curve of the dark matter halo. Lines are example NFW halos. The data do not behave as predicted by NFW, a generic problem in LSB galaxies.

This was bad for NFW. But there is a more general problem, irrespective of the particular form of the dark matter halo. The M_*-M_halo relation required by abundance matching means that galaxies of the same luminosity live in nearly identical dark matter halos. When dark matter dominates, galaxies of the same luminosity should thus have the same rotation curve.

We can test this by comparing the rotation curves of Tully-Fisher pairs: galaxies with the same luminosity and flat rotation velocity, but different surface brightness. The high surface brightness NGC 2403 and low surface brightness UGC 128 are such a pair. So for 20 years, I have been showing their rotation curves:

The rotation curves of NGC 2403 (red points) and UGC 128 (open points). The top panel shows radius in physical units; the bottom panel shows the same data with the radius scaled by the scale length of the disk. This is larger for the LSB galaxies (blue lines in top panel) and has the net effect that the normalized rotation curves are practically indistinguishable.

If NGC 2403 and UGC 128 reside in the same dark matter halo, they should have basically the same rotation curve in physical units [V(R in kpc)]. They don’t. But they do have the pretty much the same rotation curve when radius is scaled by the size of the disk [V(R/Rd)]. The dynamics “knows about” the baryons, in contradiction to the expectation for dark matter dominated galaxies.

Oman et al. have rediscovered the top panel (which they call diversity) but they don’t notice the bottom panel (which one might call uniformity). That galaxies of the same luminosity have different rotation curves remains surprising to simulations, at least the EAGLE and APOSTLE simulations Oman et al. discuss. (Note that APOSTLE was called LG by Oman et al.) Oman et al. illustrate the point with a number of rotation curves, for example, their Fig. 5:

Oman et al. show that the rotation curves of LSB galaxies rise more slowly than predicted by simulations, and have a different shape. This is the same problem that we pointed out two decades ago. Indeed, note that the lower left panel is F583-1: the same galaxy noted above, showing the same discrepancy. The new thing is that these simulations include the effects of baryons (shaded regions). Baryons do not help to resolve the problem, at least as implemented in EAGLE and APOSTLE.

It is tempting to be snarky and say that this quantifies how many years simulators are behind observers. But that would be too generous. Observers had already noticed the systematic illustrated in the bottom panel of the NGC2403/UGC 128 in the previous millennium. Simulators are just now coming to grips with the top panel. The full implications of the bottom panel seems not yet to have disturbed their dreams of dark matter.

Perhaps that passes snarky and on into rude, but it isn’t like we haven’t been telling them exactly this for years and years and years. The initial reaction was not mere disbelief, but outright scorn. The data disagree with simulations, so the data must be wrong! Seriously, this was the attitude. I don’t doubt that it persists in some of the colder, darker corners of the communal astro-theoretical intellect.

Indeed, Ludlow et al. provide an example. These are essentially the same people as wrote Oman et al. Though Oman et al. point out a problem when comparing the simulations to data, Ludlow et al. claim that the observed uniformity is “a Natural Outcome of Galaxy Formation in CDM halos”. Seriously. This is in their title.

Well, which is it? Is the diversity of rotation curves a problem for simulations? Or is their uniformity a “natural outcome”? This is not natural at all.

Note that the lower right panel of the figure from Oman et al. contains the galaxy IC 2574. This galaxy obviously deviates from the expectation of the simulations. These predict accelerations that are much larger than observed at small radii. Yet Ludlow et al. claim to explain the radial acceleration relation.

This situation is self-contradictory. Either the simulations explain the RAR, or they fail to explain the “diversity” of rotation curves. These are not independent statements.

I can think of two explanations: either (i) the data that define the RAR don’t include diverse galaxies, or (ii) the simulations are not producing realistic galaxies. In the latter case, it is possible that both the rotation curve and the baryon distribution are off in a way that maintains some semblance of the observed RAR.

I know (i) is not correct. Galaxies like F583-1 and IC 2574 help define the RAR. This is one reason why the RAR is problematic for simulations.

ic2574_rar — The rotation curve of IC 2574 (left) and its location along the RAR (right).

That leaves (ii). Though the correlation Ludlow et al. show misses the data, the real problem is worse. They only obtain the semblance of the right relation because the simulated galaxies apparently don’t have the same range of surface brightness as real galaxies. They’re not just missing V(R); now that they include baryons they are also getting the distribution of luminous mass wrong.

I have no doubt that this problem can be fixed. Doing so is “simply” a matter of revising the feedback prescription until the desired results is obtained. This is called fine-tuning.

Another quick-trick simulation result

There has already been one very quick attempt to match ΛCDM galaxy formation simulations to the radial acceleration relation (RAR). Another rapid preprint by the Durham group has appeared. It doesn’t do everything I ask for from simulations, but it does do a respectable number of them. So how does it do?

First, there is some eye-rolling language in the title and the abstract. Two words: natural (in the title) and accommodated (in the abstract). I can’t not address these before getting to the science.

Natural. As I have discussed repeatedly in this blog, and in the refereed literature, there is nothing natural about this. If it were so natural, we’d have been talking about it since Bob Sanders pointed this out in 1990, or since I quantified it better in 1998 and 2004. Instead, the modus operandi of much of the simulation community over the past couple of decades has been to pour scorn on the quality of rotation curve data because it did not look like their simulations. Now it is natural?

Accommodate. Accommodation is an important issue in the philosophy of science. I have no doubt that the simulators are clever enough to find a way to accommodate the data. That is why I have, for 20 years, been posing the question What would falsify ΛCDM? I have heard (or come up myself with) only a few good answers, and I fear the real answer is that it can’t be. It is so flexible, with so many freely adjustable parameters, that it can be made to accommodate pretty much anything. I’m more impressed by predictions that come ahead of time.

That’s one reason I want to see what the current generation of simulations say before entertaining those made with full knowledge of the RAR. At least these quick preprints are using existing simulations, so while not predictions in the strictest since, at least they haven’t been fine-tuned specifically to reproduce the RAR. Lots of other observations, yes, but not this particular one.

Ludlow et al. show a small number of model rotation curves that vary from wildly unrealistic (their NoAGN models peak at 500 km/s; no disk galaxy in the universe comes anywhere close to that… Vera Rubin once offered a prize for any that exceeded 300 km/s) to merely implausible (their StrongFB model is in the right ballpark, but has a very rapidly rising rotation curve). In all cases, their dark matter halos seem little affected by feedback, in contrast to the claims of other simulation groups. It will be interesting to follow the debate between simulators as to what we should really expect.

They do find a RAR-like correlation. Remarkably, the details don’t seem to depend much on the feedback scheme. This motivates some deeper consideration of the RAR.

The RAR plots observed centripetal acceleration, g_obs, against that predicted by the observed distribution of baryons, g_bar. We chose these coordinates because this seems to be the fundamental empirical correlation, and the two quantities are measured in completely independent ways: rotation curves vs. photometry. While measured independently, some correlation is guaranteed: physically, g_obs includes g_bar. Things only become weird when the correlation persists as g_obs ≫ g_bar.

The models are well fit by the functional form we found for the data, but with a different value of the fit parameter: g_† = 3 rather than 1.2 x 10^-10 m s^-2. That’s a factor of 2.5 off – a factor that is considered fatal for MOND in galaxy clusters. Is it OK here?

The uncertainty in the fit value is 1.20 ± 0.02. So formally, 3 is off by 90σ. However, the real dominant uncertainty is systematic: what is the true mean mass-to-light ratio at 3.6 microns? We estimated the systematic uncertainty to be ± 0.24 based on an extensive survey of plausible stellar population models. So 3 is only 7.5σ off.

The problem with systematic uncertainties is that they do not obey Gaussian statistics. So I decided to see what we might need to do to obtain g_† = 3 x 10^-10 m s^-2. This can be done if we take sufficient liberties with the mass-to-light ratio.

rar_lowmlforhighgdagger — The radial acceleration relation as observed (open points fit by blue line) and modeled (red line). Filled points are the same data with the disk mass-to-light ratio reduced by a factor of two.

Indeed, we can get in the right ball park simply by reducing the assumed mass-to-light ratio of stellar disks by a factor of two. We don’t make the same factor of two adjustment to the bulge components, because the data don’t approach the 1:1 line at high accelerations if this is done. So rather than our fiducial model with M_*/L(disk) = 0.5 M_⊙/L_⊙ and M_*/L(bulge) = 0.7 M_⊙/L_⊙ (open points in plot), we have M_*/L(disk) = 0.25 M_⊙/L_⊙ and M_*/L(bulge) = 0.7 M_⊙/L_⊙ (filled points in plot). Lets pretend like we don’t know anything about stars and ignore the fact that this change corresponds to truncating the IMF of the stellar disk so that M dwarfs don’t exist in disks, but they do in bulges. We then find a tolerable match to the simulations (red line).

Amusingly, the data are now more linear than the functional form we assumed. If this is what we thought stars did, we wouldn’t have picked the functional form the simulations apparently reproduce. We would have drawn a straight line through the data – at least most of it.

That much isn’t too much of a problem for the models, though it is an interesting question whether they get the shape of the RAR right for the normalization they appear to demand. There is a serious problem though. That becomes apparent in the lowest acceleration points, which deviate strongly below the red line. (The formal error bars are smaller than the size of the points.)

It is easy to understand why this happens. As we go from high to low accelerations, we transition from bulge dominance to stellar disk dominance to gas dominance. Those last couple of bins are dominated by atomic gas, not stars. So it doesn’t matter what we adopt for the stellar mass-to-light ratio. That’s where the data sit: well off the simulated line.

Is this fatal for these models? As presented, yes. The simulations persist in predicting higher accelerations than observed. This has been the problem all along.

There are other issues. The scatter in the simulated RAR is impressively small. Much smaller than I expected. Smaller even than the observational scatter. But the latter is dominated by observational errors: the intrinsic relation is much tighter, consistent with a δ-function. The intrinsic scatter is what they should be comparing their results to. They either fail to understand, or conveniently choose to gloss over, the distinction between intrinsic scatter and that induced by random errors.

It is worth noting that some of the same authors make this same mistake – and it is a straight up mistake – in discussing the scatter in the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation. The assertion there is “the scatter in the simulated BTF is smaller than observed”. But the observed scatter is dominated by observational errors, which we have taken great care to assess. Once this is done, there is practically no room left over for intrinsic scatter, which is what the models display. This is important, as it completely inverts the stated interpretation. Rather than having less scatter than observed, the simulations exhibit more scatter than allowed.

Can these problems be fixed? No doubt. See the comments on accommodation above.

The Grand Observational Challenge for Galaxy Formation Simulations

After writing the commentary on the latest fin du MOND, it occurred to me that there are many issues that I consider to be obvious. But I’ve been thinking about them for a quarter century, so perhaps they may need to be clearly elucidated for those who don’t share that background. I am thinking, in particular, of galaxy formation modelers and theorists.

There are now many sophisticated galaxy formation simulations by many independent groups. They use different codes (sometimes with overlap) to implement the same physics with different algorithms. Well, sometimes it isn’t entirely clear that they’re talking about the same physics, or just using the same words to mean different things. But they all seek to form realistic galaxies in numerical simulations.

The observed radial acceleration relation (RAR) provides a strong test of simulated galaxy models. To claim that a suite of model galaxies is realistic, they must match the RAR. If they do, great. If they don’t, then they are not an adequate representation of observed reality.

What needs to happen now is for every group that performs these simulations to test their models against the data. We have provided the necessary observational data. All they need to do is make the same straightforward query of their simulation results. This is the Grand Observational Challenge for Galaxy Simulations.

Some requests:

Please be explicit: show your work.
- Show us the RAR from your models. Don’t hide anything.
- Show us the parameter space covered by your models (M_h, M_*, R, Σ, etc.)
- Show us the mass models of individual simulated galaxies.
- Don’t just assert everything works out and expect me to believe it.
Start with what you’ve got.
- I want to see what the current generation of models shows before you go and run more and more simulations until you find some that match the data.
- When seeking models that do match, quantify the failure rate. How much parameter space do you have to hunt through before it works? How plausible were those not-quite-right parameters, independent of knowledge of the RAR?
Don’t claim more than you actually demonstrate.
- If you have simulations that span only 0.03% of the observed mass range, then only claim to explain (at most) 0.03% of the problem.
Pay careful attention to the scatter.
- How much intrinsic scatter should we expect?
- What are the sources of scatter? Are they irreducible?
- Are there residual correlations?
  - That is, at fixed mass (say) do galaxies fall systematically on one or the other side of the RAR depending on scale length or some other parameter?
Don’t fudge it.
- I can tell.

Triton Station

A Blog About the Science and Sociology of Cosmology and Dark Matter

Category: Galaxy Formation