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

In summary, the relationships between spirals, ellipticals, dwarf galaxies, and globular clusters are not well understood. There is a paper suggesting that there may be more than one TFR, and another paper suggesting that the inverse square law may not apply at short distances.
  • #1
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,401
3
In https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=112890", 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)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
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:
  • #3
Yes, LSBs follow Tully-Fisher. This was a great triumph for MOND, which predicted it.
Best.
Jim
 
  • #4
jgraber said:
Yes, LSBs follow Tully-Fisher. This was a great triumph for MOND, which predicted it.
Best.
Jim
Do you have some references?
 
  • #5
hellfire said:
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.
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!).
 
  • #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.

Jim
 
  • #7
Jim Graber,
did you look at this recent MOND paper by Magueijo and Bekenstein?

astro-ph/0602266

MOND habitats within the solar system
 
  • #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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Hi Jim, feeling lazy tonight. What is Adelberger level sensitivity?
 
  • #10
Chronos said:
Hi Jim, feeling lazy tonight. What is Adelberger level sensitivity?
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.

Jim
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
I've not heard of any serious deviations, though the exact relationship one uses is band-dependent.
 
  • #12
SpaceTiger said:
I've not heard of any serious deviations, though the exact relationship one uses is band-dependent.
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.

Jim
 

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

1. What is the Tully-Fisher relation?

The Tully-Fisher relation is an empirical relationship between the luminosity or absolute magnitude of a spiral galaxy and its rotation velocity. It was first discovered by astronomers R. Brent Tully and J. Richard Fisher in the late 1970s. This relation is useful for measuring the mass of spiral galaxies, as it allows for the estimation of the galaxy's mass based on its observable properties.

2. What is the fundamental plane in astronomy?

The fundamental plane is a relation among the observable properties of elliptical galaxies. It was first discovered by astronomers Sandra Faber and Robert Jackson in the early 1980s. The fundamental plane combines the galaxy's luminosity, size, and velocity dispersion to provide a more accurate measure of the galaxy's mass. This relation is useful for studying the evolution and formation of elliptical galaxies.

3. How do LSBs (low surface brightness) galaxies fit into the Tully-Fisher and fundamental plane relations?

LSBs, which are typically dwarf galaxies with low surface brightness, follow the same Tully-Fisher and fundamental plane relations as more massive spiral and elliptical galaxies. However, they have lower luminosities and lower velocity dispersions, making it more challenging to accurately measure their masses. Some studies have suggested that LSBs may have different scaling relations than high surface brightness galaxies, but more research is needed to confirm this.

4. What are dwarf galaxies and how do they differ from other types of galaxies?

Dwarf galaxies are smaller and less massive than other types of galaxies, such as spiral and elliptical galaxies. They are often irregular in shape and have lower luminosities, meaning they emit less light. Dwarf galaxies are thought to be the building blocks of more massive galaxies and are essential for understanding the formation and evolution of galaxies in the universe.

5. Can the Tully-Fisher and fundamental plane relations be applied to all types of galaxies?

The Tully-Fisher and fundamental plane relations have been primarily studied in spiral and elliptical galaxies, respectively. However, recent research has shown that these relations can be extended to other types of galaxies, such as irregular and dwarf galaxies. However, the applicability of these relations to all types of galaxies is still an area of active research in the field of astronomy.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top