See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324769143

A simple model for explaining Galaxy Rotation Curves

Preprint · April 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 433

3 authors:

Aneta Wojnar Ciprian A. Sporea

Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo West University of Timisoara
22 PUBLICATIONS   62 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Andrzej Z. Borowiec
University of Wroclaw
121 PUBLICATIONS   1,927 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CANTATA - Cosmology and Astrophysics Network for Theoretical Advances and Training Actions - COST Action CA15117. View project

CANTATA - Cosmology and Astrophysics Network for Theoretical Advances and Training Actions - COST Action CA15117 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ciprian A. Sporea on 27 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A simple model for explaining Galaxy Rotation Curves
Aneta Wojnar,1, ∗ Ciprian A. Sporea,2, † and Andrzej Borowiec3, ‡
1
Institute of Physics, Maria Curie-Sklodowska University,
20-031 Lublin, pl. Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej 1, Poland
2
West University of Timişoara, V. Pârvan Ave. 4, RO-300223 Timişoara, Romania
3
Institute for Theoretical Physics, pl. M. Borna 9, 50-204, Wroclaw, Poland
Abstract: A new simple expression for the circular velocity of spiral galaxies is proposed and
tested against HI Nearby Galaxy Survey (THINGS) data set. Its accuracy is compared with the
one coming from MOND.

PACS numbers: 04.50.Kd; 98.52.Nr; 95.35.+d; 04.80.Cc.

arXiv:1804.09620v1 [gr-qc] 25 Apr 2018

I. INTRODUCTION fective action [48–50]. In this work we will not consider

any concrete theory of gravitation from which we provide
the equation ruling the motion of galactic stars. Start-
The so-called ΛCDM model, coming from slightly ing from the standard form of the geodesic equation a
modified General Relativity (GR) [21, 22], together with formula for the rotational velocity will be derived. We
astronomical observations, indicates that there is about will also present how our simple model matches the as-
30% of dust matter which we know that exists. From trophysical data and that it possesses some similarities
it we are able to detect only 20% which is baryonic de- to ones appearing in the literature. At the end we will
scribed by the Standard Model of particle physics. The draw our conclusions. The metric signature convention
rest of it is so-called Dark Matter [3, 15, 16, 31, 45, 51, is (−, +, +, +).
52, 68, 69] which is supposed to explain the flatness of ro-
tational galaxies’ curves. Nowadays, there are two main
II. PROPOSED MODEL
competing ideas for explaining the Dark Matter problem.
The first one consists in modifying the geometric part of
the gravitational field equations (see e.g. [15, 43, 44]) The standard expression of the quadratic velocity for a
while the other one introduces weakly interacting parti- star moving on a circular trajectory around the galactic
cles which are failed to be detected [11]. Despite this, center is simply obtained from the GR in the weak field
it is also believed that these two ideas do not contradict and small velocity approximations. One assumes that
each other and could be combined together in some fu- the orbit of a star in a galaxy is circular which is in a
ture successful theory. good agreement with astronomical observations [7]. Thus
If Dark Matter exists, it interacts only gravitationally the relation between the centripetal acceleration and the
with visible parts of our universe, and it seems to also velocity is simply:
have an effect on the large scale structure of our Uni- v2
verse [20, 47]. There are some models which have faced a=− . (1)
r
the problem of this unknown ingredient. The famous
one is called Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) A test particle as we treat a single star in our considera-
[9, 35, 36, 39–41, 54, 56] - it has already predicted many tions satisfies the geodesic equation
galactic phenomena and this is why it is very popular d2 xµ dxν dxσ
among astrophysicists. It has already a relativistic ver- 2
+ Γµνσ = 0. (2)
ds ds ds
sion: the so-called Tensor/Vector/Scalar (TeVeS) theory
of gravity [10, 42]. Another approach is to consider Ex- Although the velocity of stars moving around the
tended Theories of Gravity (ETGs) in which one modi- galactic center is very high, when compared with the
fies the geometric part of the field equations [17, 29, 55]. speed of light, it turns out that they are still much smaller
There were also attempts to obtain MOND result from so we deal with the condition v << c. It means that
ETGs, see for example [1, 2, 8, 14, 24, 25]. The Weyl in the spherical-symmetric parametrization the velocities
conformal gravity [32–34] is a next interesting proposal satisfy
for explaining rotation curves. Moreover, we would also 
dr dθ dϕ

dx0
like to mention the existence of a model based on large vi = , r , r sin θ << , (3)
dt dt dt dt
scale renormalization group effects and a quantum ef-
where x0 = ct. Taking into account eq. (3) and consider-
ing the week field limit of eq. (2) together with Γ000 = 0
(static spacetime), we obtain
∗ Electronic address: [email protected]
† Electronic address: [email protected] d2 xr
‡ Electronic address: [email protected] = −c2 Γr00 . (4)
dt2
 2

Inserting eq. (4) into (1) one gets In the limit aN ewt ≫ a0 , the MOND formalism
gives asymptotic constant velocities
dΦ(r)
v 2 (r) = rc2 Γr00 = r . (5)
dr vc2 =
p
a0 GM . (11)
with Φ(r) being a Newtonian potential (see for example
[66]) such that finally we have
• Coming from f (R) gravity (metric formalism) ex-
GM amined by [17, 18]. Here, they used the ansatz
v 2 (r) = (6)
r f (R) ∼ Rn , to obtain:
where G is gravitational constant while the mass M is "  β #
usually assumed to be r-dependent, that is, one deals 2 GM r
v (r) = 1 + (1 − β) (12)
with some matter distribution depending on a concrete 2r rc
model. Let’s assume the following simple distribution of
mass in a galaxy [57] where β is a function of the slope n of the La-
r !3β grangian while rc is a scale length depending on
R0 r gravitational system properties
M (r) = M0 (7)
rc r + rc
• Given by Scalar - Vector - Tensor Gravity [13, 42]
with M0 the total galaxy mass, rc the core radius and which is in very good agreement with the RC Milky
R0 the observed scale length of the galaxy. The matter Way data
distribution in eq. (7) without the term containing the
quare root was also used in Ref. [13]. Since the GR GM 
v 2 (r) = 1 + α − α(1 + µr)e−µr

prediction on the shapes of galaxies curves coming from (13)
r
(6) failed against the observation data, one looks for some
modification. The first one which appears in one’s mind where the two free parameters allow the fitting of
is to consider a bit more complicated mass distribution galaxy rotation curves.
which can also include Dark Matter halo in his form as
well as different galaxy structure, for example disk, or • Our previous result [57], coming from Starobinsky
other shapes. model f (R̂) = R̂ + γ R̂2 considered in Palatini for-
We would like to perform a bit different approach, that malism which is the simplest example of EPS in-
is, let us modify the geometry part by, for example, con- terpretation
sidering effective quantities that could be obtained from
Extended Theories of Gravity. There are many works GM (r)

2GM (r) 2πκγc2 r3 ρ2

2
following this approach which inspired us to examine a v ≈ 1+ − ,
below toy model. The most interesting ones which do r c2 r M (r)(1 + 2κγc2 ρ)2
(14)
not assume the existence of any Dark Matter according
where we assumed the order of γ as 10−10 taken
to the authors are the following:
from cosmological considerations [59], ρ is energy
• The Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) [39] density obtained from mass distribution provided
(see also similar result in [38] and reviews in [9, by the model and (7), see the details in [57].
41, 54, 56]). It is the most spread modification
among astronomers since is very simple, does not We immediately observe that all these modifications com-
include any exotic ingredients (Dark Matter) and ing from different models of gravity possess a feature
the most important, it is in a good agreement with which can be simply written as
observations. The MOND velocity is given by
GM  
 s 2 1/2
 v 2 (r) = 1 + A(r) (15)
r

GM 1 2a 0
v 2 (r) = √ 1 + 1 + r4  (8)
r 2 GM where the unknown function A(r) depends on the radial
coordinate and some parameters. In this manner, the
where a0 ≈ 1.2 × 10− 10 ms−2 is the critical accel- function A(r) is treated as a deviation from the Newto-
eration. Eq. (8) is obtained from the Milgrom’s nian limit of General Relativity.
acceleration formula Our task now is to find a suitable function A(r) which
 
MG MG takes into account and reproduces the observed flatness
a= 2 µ 2 (9) of galaxy rotation curves. Moreover, at short distances
r r a0
(at least the size of the Solar System) the velocity from
using the standard interpolation function eq. (15) should have as a limit the Newtonian result
x v 2 (r) = GM/r. These imposes some constrains on the
µ(x) = √ (10)
1 + x2 function A(r).
 3

III. A PARTICULAR EXAMPLE for the rotation curves. The plots in Fig. 1 and the best
fit results from Table I are obtained using the value b =
We have seen in the previous section that there are 0.352. As in [13] the value β = 1 (for HSB galaxies) and
many alternatives to General Relativity which possess ex- β = 2 (LSB galaxies) give good fit results. By allowing
tra terms that improve the behavior of the galaxy curves. β to be a free parameter, slightly better fits results can
Moreover, many of them can have the same week field be obtain. In this case a preliminary analysis indicates
limit producing the same result (15). Thus, one can ex- that 0.75 < β < 1.25 for HSB galaxies and 1.9 < β < 2.1
plain the observed galaxy rotation curves using the equa- for LSB galaxies. However, in order to keep the free
tion (15) without the assumption on the existence of Dark parameters to a minimum we have chosen here to fix the
Matter. value of β.
In this section we would like to propose a model for fit- If we replace the matter distribution (7) in the equation
ting the galaxy rotation curves data observed astronom- (17) with the one coming from the spherical version of
ically. As we will see the model fits quite well the data the exponential disc profile [7]
set of galaxies obtained from THINGS: The HI Nearby     
r r
Galaxy Survey catalogue [12, 65], on which our analysis M (r) = M0 1 − 1 + exp − , (21)
is performed. R0 R0
A very simple model that fits well the data (as can be we can then fit the rotation curves using only M/L as
seen from Figs. 1, 2) is obtained by choosing a free parameter. The resulted predicted values for the
  stellar mass of the galaxies are given in Table II together
r + r0
A(r) = b (16) with the corresponding rotation curves in Fig. 2.
r0
where b and r0 are two parameters. Inserting eq. (16)
1. The Tully-Fisher relation
into the velocity formula (15) we obtain
  
GM r The empirical observational relation between the ob-
v 2 (r) = 1+b 1+ . (17) served luminosity of a galaxy and the fourth power of the
r r0
last observed velocity point is known as the Tully-Fisher
In the non-relativistic limit the circular velocity and the relation [61]
gravitational potential are related through the usual for-
4
mula v 2 (r) = r dΦ L ∝ vlast , (22)
dr , from which it follows immediately
that
    which can be rewritten as
GM r r
Φ(r) = − 1+b 1− ln . (18) log(M ) = a log(v) + b. (23)
r r0 r0
In the figure 3 we have presented the observational Tully-
The dependence on ln(r/r0 ) in the potential was also
Fisher relation (top-left panel) together with the fits of
reported in refs. [38, 48–50]. Moreover, we observe that
the parametric model given by the equation (17) using
in the limit b → 0 both equations (17) and (18) reduce
the mass distribution (7) in the right-top panel and the
to their usual Newtonian expressions.
spherical version of the exponential disk mass distribu-
Using the matter distribution (7) and identifying the
tion (21) in the right-bottom panel, respectively. The
parameter r0 contained in eq.(17) with the galaxy scale
left-bottom panel presents the Tully-Fisher relation com-
length R0 , the final rotational velocity of stars moving in
ing from MOND mass predictions.
circular orbits is
r !3β   
2 GM 0 R0 r r IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
v (r) = 1+b 1+
r rc r + rc R0
(19) In the presented paper we have considered the possible
One can immediately deduce an important feature of the explanation of observed galactic rotation curves by the
above formula, namely that in the limit of large radii we assumption that the observed effect of the flatness can
obtain flat rotation curves, similar to what happens in be explained by some alternative theory of gravity which
MOND theories [9, 35, 36, 39–41, 54, 56] (see also eq. introduces an extra term which we called A(r). This term
(11) above) can be treated as a deviation from the Newtonian limit
s
 3β/2 of GR.
GM b R0 Our results are presented in the tables I and II together
v0 = (20) with the plots in the figures 1 and 2. Although we would
R0 rc
like to think about this contribution like something com-
From the analysis of the 18 THINGS galaxies sample ing from a bit different geometry appearing in the mod-
we have found b = 0.352 ± 0.08 to give a good fit results ified Einstein field equations, it can be also thought as
 4

TABLE I: Best fit results according to eq.(19) using the parametric mass distribution (7). These numerical values correspond
to rotation curves presented in Fig. 1. Col. (1) name of galaxy; col (2) distance; col. (3) measured scale length of the galaxy;
col. (4) base ten logarithm of total gas mass given by Mgas = 4/3MHI , with the MHI data taken from [65]; col. (5) galaxy
luminosity in the B-band calculated from [65]; col. (6) base ten logarithm of the predicted stelar mass M∗ of the galaxy
(obtained by subtracting Mgas from the best-fit results for the total mass M0 ); col. (7) the predicted core radius rc ; col. (8)
reduced χ2r ; col. (9) the stelar mass-to-light ratio calculated by subtracting the mass of the gas from the total mass and then
dividing it by the B-band luminosity; col. (10) base ten logarithm of MOND predicted mass of the galaxy; col. (11) the MOND
predicted core radius rc ; col. (12) MOND reduced χ2r ; and col. (13) the MOND stelar mass-to-light ratio.
MOND
Galaxy D R0 log Mgas LB log M∗ rc χ2r M∗ /L log M∗ rc χ2r M∗ /L
10
Mpc kpc M⊙ 10 L⊙ M⊙ kpc M⊙ /L⊙ M⊙ kpc M⊙ /L⊙
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
HSB type
NGC 2403 3.2 2.7 9.53 0.921 10.36 2.48 1.32 2.49 10.21 2.06 0.69 1.78
NGC 2841 14.1 3.5 10.06 4.742 10.64 1.73 1.11 0.92 11.50 2.81 1.71 6.71
NGC 2903 8.9 3.0 9.76 3.664 10.67 2.51 5.30 1.29 11.06 2.85 7.94 3.14
NGC 3031 3.6 2.6 9.68 3.049 9.76 0.88 5.63 0.19 10.66 1.37 6.07 1.52
NGC 3198 13.8 4.0 10.13 3.106 10.58 3.76 1.61 1.23 10.19 2.96 3.99 0.50
NGC 3521 10.7 3.3 10.03 3.698 10.31 1.84 5.19 0.55 10.78 2.09 6.31 1.65
NGC 3621 6.6 2.9 9.97 1.629 10.42 2.75 1.49 1.63 10.28 2.29 0.85 1.17
NGC 3627 9.3 3.1 9.04 3.076 10.23 1.53 0.83 0.56 10.68 1.87 0.91 1.59
NGC 4736 4.7 2.1 8.72 1.294 8.42 0.32 2.50 0.02 8.93 0.34 5.18 0.07
NGC 4826 7.5 2.6 8.86 2.779 10.67 2.85 1.57 1.71 10.61 2.27 1.61 1.46
NGC 5055 10.1 2.9 10.08 4.365 9.98 1.50 1.24 0.22 10.35 1.47 2.54 0.51
NGC 6946 5.9 2.9 9.74 2.729 10.80 2.74 1.52 2.31 11.26 3.29 1.61 6.70
NGC 7331 14.7 3.2 10.08 7.244 10.40 1.68 0.37 0.35 11.13 2.31 0.24 1.86
NGC 7793 3.9 1.7 9.07 0.511 10.32 2.09 4.65 4.13 10.53 2.29 4.23 6.73
LSB type
DDO 154 4.3 0.8 8.68 0.007 8.62 0.69 1.01 6.00 8.34 0.83 0.59 3.14
IC 2574 4.0 4.2 9.29 0.273 9.98 3.07 0.52 3.49 10.49 4.86 0.30 11.40
NGC 925 9.2 3.9 9.78 1.614 9.34 2.62 0.31 0.54 10.55 3.61 0.25 2.22
NGC 2976 3.6 1.2 8.27 0.201 8.71 0.58 2.19 0.26 9.41 0.75 1.37 1.30

some extra field, for example scalar one which recently mass in col. (10) and the predicted mass in col. (6) is in
has been considered as an agent of the cosmological in- the interval (0.4, 8.1) such that for 13 out of 18 galaxies
flation [62–64]. This choice for A(r) in (16) could be ex- the MOND mass is higher.
plained by considering two conformally related metrics The stellar mass-to-light ratio M/L (denoted Υ∗ ) is
(the GR metric gµν and a ”dark metric” hµν ) as pro- usually estimated in the literature [4, 37, 67] by using
posed in [57]. However, so far we have not been able to color-to-mass-to-light ratio relations (CMLR) of the type
find a suitable metric hµν . It means, one needs to know
a form of a lagrangian in the case of Palatini gravity in log Υi∗ = ai + bi · color (24)
order to know the form of the dark metric.
a, b are two parameters and i is the band of the mea-
Now on, we shall compare the new phenomenological sured data. Then using the observed luminosity in the
model proposed in section II for explaining flat galaxy corresponding band, an estimate of the stellar mass is
rotation curves with the widely accepted MOND model. obtained. In [37] the authors use CMLR and four stellar
Let us start analyzing the predictions from the table population synthesis models [5, 30, 46, 67] to compute
I. Comparing col. (7) and col. (3) from the table I the stellar mass for a sample of 40 galaxies, including 13
we observe that in all galaxies of the sample (excepting of the THINGS galaxies used in this paper. Comparing
NGC4826 and NGC7793) the predicted core radius rc is our predicted stellar mass from the table I, col. (6) with
smaller than the galaxy length scale R0 . The same is the values from the table 3 in [37] and/or the values from
true for MOND (excepting galaxies NGC7793, DDO154 the tables 3,4 in [12] we have found that for 5 galaxies the
and IC2574). The ratio between the predicted MOND predicted mass in col. (6) is in very good agreement, for
 5

Taking all the above into account, one arrives to the

TABLE II: Best fitting results using eqs. (17) and (21). The
conclusion that the new model (which does not assume
corresponding rotation curves are given in Fig.2. Col. (3)
gives best-fit results for the predicted galaxy stelar mass; col.
the existence on any type of Dark Matter) proposed in
(4) gives the values of reduced χ2r ; and col. (5) gives the stelar this paper gives very good flat rotation curves fits of the
mass-to-light ratio. 18 THINGS galaxies in the data sample. Moreover, when
compared with MOND the difference between the two
Galaxy Type log M χ2r M/L
set of fits is small and thus one is not able to say which
( M⊙ ) (M⊙ /L⊙ ) model is better than the other one for the explanation of
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) the rotation curves.
NGC 2403 HSB 10.15 3.88 1.51 We had not had any concrete theory in mind when
NGC 2841 HSB 11.08 0.55 2.58 we wanted to check our assumptions on the modifica-
NGC 2903 HSB 10.60 2.10 1.09
tion term A(r). Since we have been influenced by the
results obtained by the others (briefly described in the
NGC 3031 HSB 10.67 15.01 1.55
section II), we wanted to find much simpler modification
NGC 3198 HSB 10.33 3.55 0.69 apart MOND which also provides a required shape of the
NGC 3521 HSB 10.69 6.18 1.34 galaxies curves. Therefore now, when we have shown that
NGC 3621 HSB 10.14 10.41 0.86 observational data does not exclude the obtained result
NGC 3627 HSB 10.70 4.94 1.63 (19), it is stimulating to think about existing theories of
gravity.
NGC 4736 HSB 10.27 - 1.46
NGC 4826 HSB 10.36 3.14 0.83 The proposed model presented in this paper (enclosed
in eq. (19)) can be viewed for now as a phenomenological
NGC 5055 HSB 10.57 2.99 0.86
model, until a concise theory of gravity from which it can
NGC 6946 HSB 10.57 2.55 1.37 be derived, will be found or constructed. We started to
NGC 7331 HSB 10.82 1.84 0.92 tackle this task, thus working on a given theory of gravity
NGC 7793 HSB 9.75 12.47 1.09 which produces a simple modification of the quadratic
DDO 154 LSB 7.69 21.17 0.71 velocity is a topic of our current research.
IC 2574 LSB 9.59 18.47 1.43
NGC 925 LSB 9.83 10.98 0.42
NGC 2976 LSB 9.34 12.98 1.10
Acknowledgements

7 galaxies the mass is higher, while for 4 of the galaxies This work made use of THINGS, ”The HI Nearby
the mass is slightly lower. Looking now at the values of Galaxy Survey” (Walter et al. 2008). We would like to
col. (9) in the table I and col. (5) in the table II we can thank Professors Fabian Walter and Erwin de Blok for
say that the values of Υ∗ are in agreement with what is helping us in obtaining the RC data from the THINGS
expected based on stellar population models [37]. How- catalogue.
ever, using the spherical mass distribution (21) for LSB AW is partially supported by the grant of the National
galaxies dose not result in good fits for the rotational Science Center (NCN) DEC- 2014/15/B/ST2/00089. CS
curves. was partially supported by a grant of the Ministry of
In col. (8) and col. (12) of the table I the values of National Education and Scientific Research, RDI Pro-
reduced χ2 are presented. These values were computed gramme for Space Technology and Advanced Research -
using the standard definition: χ2r = χ2 /(N − n), where STAR, project number 181/20.07.2017.
N is the number of observational velocity data points; n
is the number of parameters to be fitted; and This article is based upon work from the COST Action
CA15117, supported by COST (European Cooperation
N  obs
X V − Vmodel (Ri )
2 in Science and Technology).
i
χ2 = . (25)
i
errori

[1] E. Barientos, S. Mendoza, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 131, 367 ApJS, 149, 289 (2003).
(2016). [6] A.N. Bernal, B. Janssen, A. Jimenez-Cano, J.A. Ore-
[2] A.O. Barvinsky, JCAP 01, 014 (2014). juela, M. Sanchez, P. Sanchez-Moreno, Phys. Lett. B 768,
[3] H.W. Babcock, Lick Observatory Bulletin, 19, 41-51 280-287 (2017).
(1939). [7] J. Binney, S. Tremaine, Galactic Dynamics, (Princeton
[4] E. F. Bell, R. S. de Jong, ApJ, 550, 212 (2001). University Press, 2st Ed., 2008).
[5] E. F. Bell, D. H. McIntosh, N. Katz, M.D. Weinberg, [8] T. Bernal, S. Capozziello, J.C. Hidalgo, Mendoza, S.,
 6

Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1794 (2011). [39] M. Milgrom, ApJ 270, 365 (1983).
[9] J.D.Bekenstein, Contemp. Phys. 47, 387 (2006). [40] M. Milgrom, ApJ 270, 371-389 (1983).
[10] J.D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 70, 083509 (2004). [41] M. Milgrom, In Proceedings XIX Rencontres de Blois
[11] G. Bertone, D. Hooper, J. Silk, Physics Reports 405, 279- (2008); arXiv:0801.3133
390 (2005). [42] J.W. Moffat, V.T. Toth, Phys. Rev. D 91, 043004 (2015).
[12] W.J.G. de Blok, et al., ApJ 136, 2648 (2008). [43] S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, TSPU BULLETIN n. 8, 110,
[13] J. R. Brownstein, J.W. Moffat, ApJ 636, 721-741 (2006,). 7-19 (2011).
[14] J.P. Bruneton, G. Esposito-Farese, Phys. Rev. D 76, [44] S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, Physics Reports vol 505, 2,
129902 (2007). 59-144 (2011).
[15] S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, Physics Reports vol 509, [45] J. H. Oort, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of the
4, 167-321 (2011). Netherlands, 6, 249 (1932).
[16] S. Capozziello, V. Faraoni, Beyond Einstein gravity: A [46] L. Portinari, J. Sommer-Larsen, R. Tantalo, MNRAS,
Survey of gravitational theories for cosmology and astro- 347, 691 (2004).
physics, vol. 170, Springer Science and Business Media [47] A. Refregier, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro-
(2010). physics, 41, 645-668 (2003).
[17] S. Capozziello, V.F. Cardone, A. Troisi, JCAP 08, 001 [48] D. C. Rodrigues, P. S. Letelier, Shapiro I. L., JCAP 04,
(2006). 020 (2010,).
[18] S. Capozziello, V.F. Cardone, A. Troisi, MNRAS 375, [49] D. C. Rodrigues, P. L. de Oliveira, J. C. Fabris, G. Gen-
1423-1440 (2007). tile, MNRAS 445 no. 4, 3823 (2014).
[19] S. Capozziello, M. De Laurentis, M. Francaviglia, S. [50] D. C. Rodrigues, S. Mauro, A.O.F. de Almeida, Phys.
Mercadante, Foundations of Physics 39(10), 1161-1176 Rev. D 94, 084036 (2016).
(2009). [51] V.C. Rubin, W. Kent Ford Jr., ApJ 159, 379 (1970).
[20] M. Davis, G. Efstathiou, C.S. Frenk, S.D. White, ApJ [52] V.C. Rubin, W. Kent Ford Jr., N. Thonnard, ApJ 238,
292, 371-394 (1985). 471-487 (1980).
[21] A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin [53] E.J. Sami, M.S. Tsujikawa, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15, 1753-
(Math. Phys.) 844-847 (1915). 1935 (2006).
[22] A. Einstein, Annalen Phys. 49, 769-822 (1916), (Annalen [54] R.H. Sanders, S.S. McGaugh, ARAA, 40, 263 (2002).
Phys. 14, 517 (2005)). [55] L. Sebastiani, S. Vagnozzi, R. Myrzakulov, Class. Quant.
[23] J. Ehlers, F.A.E. Pirani, A. Schild, The Geometry of Grav. 33 no.12, 125005 (2016).
Free Fall and Light Propagation, in General Relativity, [56] C. Skordis, Class. Quant. Grav. 26 (14), 143001 (2009).
ed. L.ORaifeartaigh (Clarendon, Oxford, 1972). [57] C.A. Sporea, A. Borowiec, A. Wojnar, Eur. Phys. J. C
[24] G. Esposito-Farese, Fundam.Theor.Phys. 162: 461-489 (2018) 78:308
(2011). [58] A.A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 91, 99 - 102 (1980).
[25] B. Famaey, S.S. McGaugh, Living Reviews in Relativity [59] A. Stachowski, M. Szydlowski, A. Borowiec, Eur. Phys.
15, 10 (2012). J. C 77, 406 (2017)
[26] L. Fatibene, M. Francaviglia, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. [60] K.S. Stelle, Phys. Rev. D 16 (4), 953 (1977).
Phys. 11, 1450008 (2014). [61] R. B. Tully, M. A. W. Verheijen, M. J. Pierce, J.-S.
[27] A.H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D 23, 347-356 (1981). Huang, R. J. Wainscoat, AJ, 112, 2471 (1996).
[28] D. Huterer, M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 60, 081301 (1999). [62] A. D. Linde, Phys. Let. B, Vol. 108, Issue 6 (1982), p.
[29] L. Iorio, M.L. Ruggiero, Scholarly Research Exchange, 389-393
vol. 2008, article ID 968393 (2008). [63] A. D. Linde, Phys. Ler. B, Vol. 129, Issues 34 (1983), p.
[30] T. Into, L. Portinari, MNRAS, 430, 2715 (2013). 177-181
[31] J.C. Kapteyn, ApJ 55, 302 (1922). [64] A. D. Linde, Phys. Rev. D 49, 748 (1994)
[32] P.D. Mannheim, J.G. O’Brien, PRL 106 121101 (2011). [65] F. Walter, et al., ApJ 136, 2563 (2008).
[33] P.D. Mannheim, J.G. O’Brien, Phys. Rev. D 85, 124020 [66] S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and
(2012). Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, (John
[34] P.D. Mannheim, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics Wiley & Sons, 1st Ed., 1972).
56, 340-445 (2006). [67] S. Zibetti, S. Charlot, H.-W. Rix, MNRAS, 400, 1181
[35] S.S. McGaugh, W.J.G. De Blok, ApJ 499, 66 (1998). (2009).
[36] S.S. McGaugh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 121303 (2011). [68] F. Zwicky, Helvetica Physica Acta 6, 110-127 (1933).
[37] S. S. McGaugh, J. M. Schombert, AJ, 148, 77 (2014). [69] F. Zwicky, ApJ 86, 217 (1937).
[38] S. Mendoza, G.J. Olmo, Astrophys Space Sci. 357, 133
(2015).
 7

FIG. 1: (color online) Rotational velocities in km/s (y axis) at a certain distance in kpc (x axis) from the center of the galaxy.
The blue curves RC are obtained from the parametric fit of eq. (19) in the case of 18 THINGS galaxies. The proprieties
of the galaxies in the sample can be found in Table I from Ref.[65]. The full (blue) curve are the rotation curves obtained
using eq.(19); the (red) full circles are the observed data points where the vertical (grey) lines represent the error bars; the
contribution due to the Newtonian term is given by the dash-dotted (black) lines, while the dashed (cyan) lines give the MOND
rotation curves. The numerical values resulted from the fits are given in Table I.
 8

FIG. 2: (color online) Rotational velocities in km/s (y axis) at a certain distance in kpc (x axis) from the center of the galaxy.
The blue curves RC are obtained from the parametric fit of eq. (19) in the case of HSB THINGS galaxies. The full (green)
curve are the rotation curves obtained using the spherical mass distribution (21); the (red) full circles are the observed data
points where the vertical (grey) lines represent the error bars; the contribution due to the Newtonian term is given by the
dash-dotted (black) lines, while the dashed (blue) lines give rotation curves obtained using the mass distribution in eq. (7).
The numerical values resulted from the fits are given in Table II.
 9

FIG. 3: (color online) The Tully-Fisher relation. Left-top panel: the observed B-band Tully-Fisher relation. Vertical axis gives
the base 10 logarithm of the observed luminosity (in units of 1010 L⊙ , respectively 1010 M⊙ ) and the horizontal axis is the
base 10 logarithm of the last observed velocity (in km/s). Left-bottom panel: best fit Tully-Fisher relation parameterized by
log(M ) = a log(v) + b in the case of MOND. Right-top panel: Tully-Fisher best fit for the masses rezulted from the parametric
model given by eq. (17) using the mass distribution (7), respectively Right-bottom panel: Tully-Fisher relation obtained using
the spherical version of the exponential disk mass distribution (21). The value of M used in the plots is the total mass of a
given galaxy: M = M∗ + Mgas .

View publication stats