Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Tully-Fisher, fundamental plane - what about LSBs, dwarfs, etc?

  1. Mar 6, 2006 #1

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In this thread, Space Tiger mentioned the Tully-Fisher relationship for spirals, and the Faber-Jackson relationship, "part of the fundamental plane of elliptical galaxies".

    Does anyone know of a review article on the extent to which these apply, to all spirals, all ellipticals, etc?

    A related question: in terms of systematic properties, of any kind, do dwarfs, LSBs, or irregulars have relationships too? For example, do dwarf ellipticals and dwarf spirals 'obey' the same relationships as their normal (or giant) brethren? Are LSBs 'merely' faint spirals (that otherwise sit somewhere on the TFR)?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 7, 2006 #2

    hellfire

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I have no answer, but I wonder how such general formulas are valid at all. These relations seam to imply some surprising (to my eyes) universal properties of spiral or elliptical galaxies, such as the baryon fraction, the initial mass functions and the stellar density. These seam to be needed if the assumptions of a constant [itex]M/L[/itex] relation as well as surface brightness must hold. Both assumptions are needed to derive at least the Tully-Fisher relation.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2006
  4. Mar 7, 2006 #3
    Yes, LSBs follow Tully-Fisher. This was a great triumph for MOND, which predicted it.
    Best.
    Jim
     
  5. Mar 10, 2006 #4

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Do you have some references?
     
  6. Mar 10, 2006 #5

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's an intriguing question - is it some epiphenomenon, derivable from Newton/GR and the initial mass function of galaxy seeds and/or quasi-equilibrium collision/merger relationships? Or perhaps several different relationships/processes, which produce similar/overlapping results?

    I've seen at least one paper which suggests that, not unlike Cepheids turned out to be two distinct populations, there is more than one TFR (frustratingly, I can't find it just now!).
     
  7. Mar 10, 2006 #6
    Just try author MCGaugh on Arxiv Astro-ph. There are a bunch of references around 1998. Astro-ph/9801102 is one of the best. astro-ph/9711119 specifically discusses Tully-Fisher. McGaugh's MOND pages at UMd, www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/ are good, but they seem to be down right now.
    Best,
    Jim
     
  8. Mar 10, 2006 #7

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Jim Graber,
    did you look at this recent MOND paper by Magueijo and Bekenstein?

    astro-ph/0602266

    MOND habitats within the solar system
     
  9. Mar 11, 2006 #8
    Yes, I have read that paper. I am very excited that they might see something with LISA pathfinder. I also like very much this paper http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0601/0601478.pdf
    which is a good review of MOND which includes Tully- Fisher , Faber-Jackson, LSBs and Dwarf galaxies and also Globular clusters, which I think destroy CDM if the fine-tuning doesn't do it already, as I posted previously on Cosmic Variance. It lso ends with a suggestion that we could possibly see MOND effects in the laboratory. According to my calculation it would require Adelberger level sensitivity, but ranging over centimeters to meters and horizontal and then perhaps some kind of saddlepoint configuration as in the paper you referenced. on the other hand, one must not overlook negative results such as Iorio http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0601/0601055.pdf
    This paper references Pioneer Anomally but the same results apply to MOND if you overlook the absolute value restriction.
    Best
    Jim
     
  10. Mar 12, 2006 #9

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Hi Jim, feeling lazy tonight. What is Adelberger level sensitivity?
     
  11. Mar 12, 2006 #10
    About 10^-11 cm/sec^2, see for example
    http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl63-2705.pdf
    But this is differential acceleration not absolute acceleration.
    Adelberger and most other lab workers are currently looking for a breakdown of the inverse square law at short distances, not long distances. They try to get the measured force stronger rather than weaker in most cases. The proposed lab tests of MOND would require precision measurements of very weak absolute forces at relatively long scales.
    Best,
    Jim
     
  12. Mar 12, 2006 #11

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I've not heard of any serious deviations, though the exact relationship one uses is band-dependent.
     
  13. Mar 12, 2006 #12
    Yes, that is correct, no significant deviations from the inverse square law have been reported from lab experiments. And even most MOND proponents do *not* expect such a deviation to be observed. But in the paper referenced above, astro-ph/0601478, Scarpa has speculated that such a deviation would be seen. My back of the envelope estimates seem to tell me that lab experiments such as Adelberger's and others are sensitive enough, but would have to be redesigned to test this speculation. Most of the current lab experiments are looking for a deviation at the shortest possible distance due to extra dimensions or some other stringy effect. The MOND effect is a low acceleration, hence long distance effect. Hence the need to redesign the lab experiments to look "in a different place." I think the Scarpa speculation could be tested with a "long distance" of just a few centimeters, but this is just my speculation, based on Scarpa's and a few simple scaling argument calculations. A much more sophisticated "different place" argument, which also tests more mainstream MONDlike ideas is discussed in the paper Marcus referenced astro-ph/0602266.
    Best,
    Jim
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Tully-Fisher, fundamental plane - what about LSBs, dwarfs, etc?
  1. Dwarf stars (Replies: 4)

  2. Red Dwarfs (Replies: 7)

Loading...