1: %Includes changes and corrections after referee report

2: %\documentclass[preprint,epsf]{aastex}

3: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

4: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

5: %This version includes some corrections as a result of queries from the MS editor (Feb.28.08)

6: %and also some of the necessary corrections resulting from proof reading.

7: %\usepackage{amssymb,latexsym,graphics,eufrak}

8: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

9: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

10: \def\div{\vec\nabla\cdot}

11: \def\grad{\vec\nabla}

12: \def\curl{\vec\nabla\times}

13: \def\rar{\rightarrow}

14: \def\re{R_{e}}

15: \def\az{a_0}

16: \def\msun{{\rm M}_{\odot}}

17: \def\kms{~{\rm km~ s}^{-1}~}

18: \def\cmst{~{\rm cm~ s}^{-2}~}

19: \def\gcmt{~{\rm g~ cm}^{-2}~}

20: \def\vinf{V_{\infty}}

21: \def\Halpha{H$_{\alpha}~$}

22: \def\Sz{\Sigma_0}

23: \def\S{\Sigma}

24: \def\a{\alpha}

25: \def\b{\beta}

26: \def\l{\lambda}

27: \def\deg{^o}

28: \def\kpc{{\rm kpc}}

29: \def\mpc{{\rm Mpc}}

30: \def\gpc{{\rm Gpc}}

31: \def\St{\Sigma_t}

32: \def\vg{{\bf g}}

33: \def\vh{{\bf h}}

34: \def\vr{{\bf r}}

35: \def\vR{{\bf R}}

36: %______________________________________________________________________________

37: 

38: \begin{document}

39: 

40: 

41: \title{Rings and shells of ``dark matter''  as MOND artifacts}

42: \author{Mordehai Milgrom\altaffilmark{1} and Robert H. Sanders\altaffilmark{2}}

43: \altaffiltext{1}{Center for Astrophysics, Weizmann Institute of

44: Science Rehovot 76100, Israel} \altaffiltext{2}{Kapteyn Astronomical

45: Institute, 9700 AV Groningen, Netherlands}

46: 

47: \begin{abstract}

48: 

49: MOND predicts that a mass, $M$, contained within its transition

50: radius $r_t\equiv (MG/\az)^{1/2}$, may exhibit a feature at about

51: that radius in the form of a shell, or projected ring, in the

52: deduced distribution of its phantom dark matter. This occurs despite

53: the absence of any underlying feature in the true (``baryon'')

54: source distribution itself. The phenomenon is similar to the

55: appearance of an event horizon and other unusual physics ``in the

56: middle of nothing'' near the transition radius of General Relativity

57: $MG/c^2$. We consider the possibility that this pure MOND phenomenon

58: is in the basis of the recent finding of such a ring in the galaxy

59: cluster Cl 0024+17 by Jee et al. We find that the parameters of the

60: observed ring can be naturally explained in this way; this feature

61: may therefore turn out to be a direct evidence for MOND. We study

62: this phenomenon in simple, axisymmetric configurations aligned with

63: the line of sight: spherical masses, a dumbbell of spherical masses,

64: and an elongated, thin structure. The properties of the apparent

65: ring: its radius, surface density, and contrast, depend on the form

66: of the MOND interpolating function and on the exact three

67: dimensional distribution of the sources (the thin-lens approximation

68: is quite invalid in MOND). We also comment on the possible

69: appearance of orphan features, marking the Newtonian-to-MOND

70: transition, in high surface brightness galaxies. In particular, we

71: find that previously unexplained structure in the rotation curves of

72: some galaxies may be evidence for such features.

73: 

74: 

75: \end{abstract}

76: 

77: \keywords{dark matter galaxy clusters: kinematics and dynamics }

78: 

79: 

80: 

81: \section{Introduction}

82: 

83:  Prompted by the recent claim of a ring-like feature in the

84: surface density distribution of the galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17, as

85: deduced from weak-lensing analysis by Jee et al. (2007), we

86: investigate the occurrence of such features in the modified

87: Newtonian dynamics (MOND; Milgrom 1983a; for reviews see Sanders and

88: McGaugh 2002, Bekenstein 2006, Milgrom 2008). In MOND, unlike

89: Newtonian dynamics, a mass $M$ defines a natural scale length

90: $r_t\equiv (MG/\az)^{1/2}$ that is unrelated to a scale-length in

91: the mass distribution itself ($\az$ is the acceleration constant

92: introduced by MOND). This is the so called transition radius

93: (Milgrom 1983a,b, 1986a). For a concentrated mass it marks the

94: transition from the Newtonian regime at small radii to the MOND

95: regime at large radii. When the mass $M$ is much more extended than

96: its transition radius, no special effects are expected at $r_t$. In

97: this case the acceleration inside the body is smaller than $\az$ and

98: the system is everywhere in the deep MOND regime: there is no

99: Newtonian-MOND transition anywhere. However, when the mass is well

100: within its transition radius there is a marked change in the

101: dynamics of test particles when crossing the transition region: the

102: potential goes from $1/r$ to logarithmic; the rotation curve goes

103: from Keplerian to flat, etc.. If we then look at the fictitious

104: ``dark matter'' density distribution, or, as is done with lensing,

105: at its projected surface density distribution, there may appear near

106: this radius a pronounced feature in the form of a maximum. For an

107: axisymmetric system aligned with the line of sight this shows as a

108: ``ring'' of dark matter. All this occurs without there being any

109: corresponding feature in the source (baryonic) distribution.

110: 

111: 

112: Physics is replete with similar examples in which a feature appears

113: in some field quantity at a radius that is unrelated to a

114: length-scale characterizing the  source distribution of the field.

115: As in our case, the radius of the feature depends on the strength of

116: the source alone and on some constants appearing in the field

117: equations. One example is the appearance of a horizon at the

118: characteristic scale attached to a mass in relativity, which is

119: introduced by $c$ and $M$; i.e., the gravitational radius $MG/c^2$.

120: The Bohr radius, $r_B$, as a mark of a transition from quantum

121: behavior for $r< r_B$ to a classical one for $r\gg r_B$ is another.

122: And in less fundamental examples: the Bondi radius in spherical

123: accretion, which depends on the central mass and the ambient gas

124: temperature; and the screening length for a charge $Q$ in a plasma.

125: 

126: 

127: In this regard it is interesting to note that, because of the

128: approximate equality $\az\sim cH_0$ (Milgrom

129: 1983a), we can write

130:  \beq r_t\sim (R_sR_H)^{1/2}, \label{ia} \eeq

131:   where

132: $R_s$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the mass, and $R_H=c/H_0$ is

133: the Hubble radius.  The transition radius is thus, approximately,

134: the harmonic mean of these two horizon radii. It is then of the

135: order of the Einstein radius for cosmological lenses, but is much

136: larger for local ones.

137: \par

138: Here we consider this interesting MOND phenomenon in more detail. It

139: turns out that beside the obvious dependence on the mass

140: distribution in the lens, the appearance of the above feature

141: depends sensitively on the behavior of the yet undetermined

142: interpolating function of MOND around its transition region. We thus

143: calculate the ring for different forms of this function.

144: \par

145: Regarding the implications of their finding to MOND, Jee et al

146: (2007) make the following statement: ``The ringlike mass structure

147: at r = 0.4 Mpc surrounding the dense core at r$\le  0.25$ Mpc not

148: traced by the cluster ICM nor by the cluster galaxies serves as the

149: most definitive evidence from gravitational lensing to date for the

150: existence of dark matter. If there is no dark matter and the cluster

151: ICM is the dominant source of gravity, the MONDian gravitational

152: lensing mass should follow the ICM, which, however, does not show

153: any hints of such peculiar mass distribution.'' Although many were

154: quick to embrace this view,  it is, in fact, quite baseless: such

155: orphan rings of phantom dark matter (PDM) are formed naturally in

156: MOND (as possibly in other modified dynamics theories). Although

157: they tend to be overwhelmed by the underlying baryon distribution

158: itself (as they would in the DM scenario proper), there are

159: circumstances in which they can be observed directly (i.e., without

160: subtracting the source distribution).

161: 

162: 

163: As regards the ring in Cl 0024+17, we find that it can  be

164: reproduced naturally with this MOND phenomenon.  It will be exciting

165: indeed (and ironical) if the ring  discovered by Jee et al. turns

166: out to be a direct image of the MOND transition region, akin to an

167: image of an event horizon of a black hole as viewed via its lensing

168: effect on background sources.

169: 

170: 

171: This is an opportunity to dispel a common misconception about MOND:

172: it does not predict that the PDM distribution follows that of the

173: (baryon) sources as stated, e.g., in the above quotation from Jee et

174: al. and in the discussion of the implications of the bullet cluster

175: for MOND (Clowe et al. 2006, and see Angus et al. 2007 for the MOND

176: answer). An obvious counterexample is a baryonic thin disc, which is

177: predicted to have both a PDM disc of finite mass (whose mass

178: distribution does not follow that of the source disc) and an

179: extended spheroid of PDM which clearly doesn't follow the source

180: distribution (Milgrom 2001). Another example is a simple system of

181: several point masses, whose distribution of MOND PDM is very

182: complex, with, among other things, numerous regions of negative PDM

183: density (Milgrom 1986b) and a system of surfaces of maximum density

184: (such as the shells we discuss here).

185: 

186: 

187: Jee et al. (2007) attribute the observed ring to an actual ring (in

188: 3-D) of dark matter resulting from a collision of two sub-clusters

189: along the line of sight. Famaey et al. (2007a) note that MOND has

190: long been known to require that the cores of clusters be dominated

191: by some form of as yet undetected matter (e.g., Gerbal et al. 1992,

192: Sanders 1999, Aguirre, Schaye \& Quataert 2001, Sanders 2003,

193: Pointecouteau \& Silk 2005, Angus Famaey \& Buote 2007). Famaey et

194: al. (2007a) considered, in particular, neutrinos as proposed by

195: Sanders (2003). They thus show that the explanation of Jee et al.

196: can be adopted in the MOND framework without adding new ingredients.

197: Angus et al. (2007) show that this as yet unseen matter also

198: accounts for the observations of the bullet cluster (Clowe et al.

199: 2006).

200: 

201: 

202: The explanation of the observed ring as a projection of the MOND PDM

203: transition shell does not require, of course, a collision to have

204: produced it. However, it is possible that such a collision has

205: created a mass distribution that brings out the ring more clearly.

206: We also find that, although it is not necessary, an aligned dumbbell

207: configuration is more conducive to the detectability of a ring than

208: a single spherical mass.

209: 

210: 

211: Our study here is by no means  exhaustive; we only aim at

212: demonstrating the phenomenon and studying in broad terms how it

213: depends on the various inputs. In particular, we limit ourselves

214: to some simple axisymmetric mass distribution that, in addition,

215: are aligned with the line of sight. This applies to spherical

216: systems in general, and also to the case of the cluster Cl

217: 0024+17, which is believed to be an aligned double cluster.

218: 

219: 

220: In section 2 we lay out the basic ideas behind the appearance of

221: ``rings'' in MOND. In section 3 we give the results for various

222: axisymmetric systems and various forms of the interpolating

223: function. In section 4 we consider the possible relevance to Cl

224: 0024+17. Section 5 discusses the phenomenon in single galaxies.

225: Section 6 is a discussion.

226: 

227: \section{The phantom ``dark matter'' surface density: shells and rings}

228: 

229: When studying the potential field of a mass distribution in MOND, it

230: is sometime useful to describe it in terms of the added mass that

231: would be required to produce the same field in Newtonian dynamics.

232: This will remain useful as long as many continue to think in terms

233: of dark matter. In the present nonrelativistic formulations of MOND

234: as modified gravity,  this phantom dark matter (PDM) density,

235: $\rho_p$, is given by (Milgrom 1986b, 2001)

236:  \beq \rho_p=-(4\pi G)^{-1}\div\vg-\rho.\label{i}\eeq

237: Here $\rho$ is the actual (``baryon'') mass density, and

238: $\vg(\vr)$ is the MOND acceleration field. The first term in

239: eq.(\ref{i}) is the dynamical mass density, $\rho_D$, deduced

240: using Newtonian dynamics.

241: 

242: 

243: Properties of the PDM distribution have been investigated in the

244: past. For example, Milgrom (1986b) showed that the PDM density can

245: be negative under certain circumstances; Brada and Milgrom (1999)

246: showed that it cannot produce accelerations much exceeding $\az$ no

247: matter what the true density distribution is, and this was confirmed

248: by Milgrom and Sanders (2005) for a sample of galaxies from rotation

249: curve analysis; Milgrom (2001) studied the properties of the PDM

250: halo of disc galaxies. Here we shall concentrate on another property

251: of the PDM halo and show that its density can have maximal surfaces

252: in regions of space where no such features exist in the underlying

253: source distribution $\rho$ (they may, e.g., appear in vacuum). And

254: when projected on the sky these surfaces lead to the appearance of

255: line features such as rings or other ridge-like structures.

256: 

257: 

258: The total Newtonian dynamical mass of an isolated (bounded) mass is infinite

259:  as the MOND potential is asymptotically logarithmic in

260: this case. However, in some sense we can say that two density

261: distributions that have the same total (bounded) mass, also have the

262: same total dynamical mass: Consider two density distributions

263: $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$ having the same total (true) mass, and both

264: bound. Take a large volume $\ell U$ of a fixed shape $U$ but

265: increasing linear dimension $\ell$. Then the resulting dynamical (or

266: phantom) mass distributions satisfy in the limit $\ell\rar \infty$

267:  \beq \int_{\ell U}(\rho_{D,1}-\rho_{D,2})d^3r\rar 0.

268:  \label{xxi}\eeq

269: 

270:  This is because from eq.(\ref{i})

271:  \beq \int_{\ell U}(\rho_{D,1}-\rho_{D,2})d^3r\propto\int_{\ell S}(\vg_1-\vg_2)\cdot d\vec \sigma,

272:  \label{xxii}\eeq

273: where $S$ is the surface of $U$. And, Milgrom (1986a) has shown that

274: next to the leading term at large radii, $-(MG\az)^{1/2}\vec r/r^2$,

275: which is common to $\vg_1$ and $\vg_2$, there is a term (which may

276: be angle dependent) that decreases as $r^{-(\sqrt{3}+1)}$, fast

277: enough to make the limit of expression (\ref{xxii}) vanish.

278: 

279: 

280: In the Lagrangian formulation, put forth by Bekenstein and Milgrom

281: (1984), we have $\vg=-\grad\phi$, where $\phi$ is the gravitational

282: potential satisfying the modified, nonlinear Poisson equation

283:  \beq \div[\mu(|\grad\phi|/\az|)\grad\phi]=4\pi G\rho, \label{pois}\eeq

284: where $\mu(x)$ is the MOND interpolating function satisfying

285: $\mu(x)\rar 1$ for $x\rar\infty$, and $\mu(x)\approx x$ for

286: $x\rar0$.  We shall, however use throughout the much more manageable

287: approximation to this theory in which the MOND and Newtonian

288: accelerations, $\vg$ and $\vg_N$ respectively, are algebraically

289: related:

290:  \beq  \mu(|\vg |/\az)\vg=\vg_N.\label{ii}\eeq

291: It is sometimes more convenient to work with the inverse of

292: eq.(\ref{ii}) and define the interpolating function $\nu(y)$

293: (Milgrom 1986a) such that

294:  \beq  \vg=\nu(|\vg_N |/\az)\vg_N.\label{iia}\eeq

295: 

296:  The algebraic relation was the first formulation of

297: the MOND paradigm, posited to apply for test particle motion

298: (Milgrom 1983a). It is an exact consequence of the Lagrangian

299: formulation, for example, for spherical systems and it captures the

300: salient consequences of the Lagrangian formulation in other

301: configurations. At any rate it is good enough for our demonstrative

302: purposes here.

303:  Note that $\mu(x)=1/\nu(y)$, where $x=g/\az$,

304: and $y=g_N/\az$, and that $\nu(y)\rar 1$ for $y\rar \infty$ and

305: $\nu(y)\rar y^{-1/2}$ for $y\rar 0$.

306: 

307: 

308: The phenomenon discussed here may be studied with massive test

309: particles, as in rotation-curve analysis. But, since the present

310: motivation comes from lensing, we discuss the phenomenon in terms of

311: its appearance in lensing analysis: we present the results in the

312: form of the projected surface density derived from $\rho_p$, or of

313: that of the total dynamical mass density $\rho_D$.

314: 

315: 

316: In calculating lensing in MOND we assume that it is given by the

317: standard general relativistic formula using the non-relativistic

318: MOND potential, which governs the motion of massive test particles.

319: This recipe follows from TeVeS (Bekenstein 2004), the best

320: relativistic formulation of MOND we have at present.

321: 

322: 

323: As in Milgrom (1986a), we exploit the scaling relations of the MOND

324: equations (both formulations enjoy the same relations) and use

325: henceforth dimensionless quantities: Our unit of mass will be $M$,

326: the total true (``baryonic'') mass of the system; the unit of length

327: is the transition radius, $r_t\equiv (MG/\az)^{1/2}$. All other

328: units are formed from them: that of acceleration is $MG/r^2_t=\az$;

329: that of the gravitational potential is  $\az

330: r_t=V^2_{\infty}=(MG\az)^{1/2}$; that of density is $Mr^{-3}_t$; and

331: that of surface density is $\Sz\equiv M r^{-2}_t=\az/G$. In these

332: units $G$ and $\az$ disappear from the above MOND equations. Note

333: that unlike the units of other quantities, which depend on the total

334: mass, those for acceleration and surface density are universal

335: constants. This fact underlies the results of Brada and Milgrom

336: (1999) and also our results here showing that $\Sz$ is always the

337: characteristic surface density of the PDM in the region of the

338: feature. Note also that because of the nearness of $\az$ to

339: cosmological acceleration (Milgrom 1983a) $\Sz$ is also on the order

340: of the critical lensing surface density for objects at cosmological

341: distance (Sanders 1999).

342: 

343: 

344: It is easy to understand why $\rho_p$, and hence possibly also

345: $\rho_D$, may possess a shell-like feature: This occurs when the

346: mass in the system is well contained within its transition radius.

347: Let us consider, heuristically, a point mass, and assume a MOND

348: interpolating function of the form that crosses abruptly from one

349: asymptotic regime to the other:

350: \beq\mu(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{l@{\quad:\quad} l}1 & x\ge 1\\x & x<

351: 1\end{array}\right. .\label{iii}\eeq

352:  Then,  for all radii smaller than 1

353: the accelerations are in the Newtonian regime, and no PDM is

354: predicted there. Beyond $r=1$ we have already deep MOND behavior;

355: so, $\rho_p$ jumps to $1/4\pi$ at $r=1$ and hence outward

356: $\rho_p=1/4\pi r^2$: a shell in the PDM distribution. The

357: corresponding projected surface density that will be deduced from

358: standard GR lensing in this case is:

359:  \beq \Sigma(R)={\pi \over

360: 2}\Sigma(0)R^{-1}\left\{\begin{array}{l@{\quad:\quad} l}1-{2\over

361: \pi}arctan[(R^{-2}-1)^{1/2}] & R\le 1\\1 & R>1\end{array}\right.

362: ,\label{iv}\eeq

363: 

364: where the central value $\S(0)=1/2\pi$, and $R$ is the projected

365: radius.

366: 

367: Thus $\S(R)$ (for the PDM alone) starts at $1/2\pi$ at the center,

368: increases to $1/4$  at $R=1$ and beyond it declines as $1/4R$. This

369: is the ``ring'' we speak of. This example already demonstrates the

370: salient properties of the ring in the more general (axisymmetric)

371: cases: The ring appears at a radius of order 1, has a maximum

372: surface density of order (usually somewhat smaller than) 1, and has

373: a contrast of that order.

374: 

375: 

376: Because the appearance of the shell feature is contingent on the

377: transition from the Newtonian regime to the MOND regime, its exact

378: properties depend strongly on the behavior of the transition

379: function $\mu(x)$ near $x=1$. This is also true of the exact maximum

380: acceleration the PDM can create as discussed in Brada and Milgrom

381: (1999) (the two phenomena are related). If such MOND rings are

382: clearly identified in enough systems this may provide important

383: constraints on the form of $\mu$ in the transition region. As part

384: of our study we consider various forms of $\mu$. We next discuss

385: this function in more detail.

386: 

387: 

388: 

389: 

390: \subsection{The MOND interpolating function}

391: In modified inertia formulations of MOND it is not clear that there

392: is one transition function that characterizes all motions, although

393: such a function does appear universally in the description of

394: circular motions in axisymemtric potentials (Milgrom 1994). From

395: this it would follow that a shell in the PDM distribution as deduced

396: from rotation curve analysis, but not necessarily lensing analyses,

397: is expected also in modified inertia formulations of MOND.  In fact,

398: given the sensitivity of the appearance of the ring to the form of

399: the interpolating function, the ring may well have a different

400: location or amplitude in lensing vs. rotation curve analysis in the

401: context of modified intertia formulations (this could possibly

402: distinguish between modified gravity and modified inertia). However,

403: such formulations are not yet developed enough to tell us what to

404: expect when probing the potential field with non circular motions

405: (such as lensing).

406:  So, here we base our discussion on modified gravity

407: formulations, in which, generically, an interpolating function

408: appears. For example, in the above Lgrangian theory, the

409: Lagrangian density of the gravitational potential is $\propto

410: F[(\grad\phi)^2/\az^2]$, and $\mu(x)\propto dF(x^2)/d(x^2)$.

411: 

412: 

413: We consider representatives from three one-parameter families of

414: interpolating functions: The first is

415:  \beq \mu_\a(x)={x\over (1+x^\a)^{1/\a}}, \label{v}\eeq

416: with the corresponding

417:  \beq \nu_\a(y)=\left[{1+(1+4y^{-\a})^{1/2}\over 2}   \right]^{1/\a}. \label{va}\eeq

418:  The case $\a=2$ has been extensively used in

419: rotation curve analysis from the first analysis by Kent (1987),

420: through Begeman Broeils and Sanders (1991), and to this day. The

421: choice $\mu_1$ has been used occasionally in various analyses (e.g.

422: Milgrom 1986a) and has recently been suggested to perform better

423: than $\mu_2$ in rotation curve analysis (Zhao and Famaey 2006,

424: Sanders and Noordermeer 2007). Famaey and Binney (2005) found that

425: neither $\mu_1$ nor $\mu_2$ adequately fit the rotation curve of the

426: Milky Way with its Basel mass model (Bissantz, Englmaier and Gerhard

427: 2003); a good fit is achieved for a function that is near $\mu_1$

428: for small arguments but approaches $\mu_2$ at high arguments. The

429: limiting case, eq.(\ref{iii}), corresponds to very large $\a$.

430: Moreover, where $y\rar\infty,$ $\nu_{\a}\approx 1+y^{-\a}/\a$; for

431: $y\rar 0,$ $\nu_{\a}\approx y^{-1/2}+y^{(\a-1)/2}/2\a.$

432: 

433: 

434: The second and third families, which we consider here for

435: the first time, are defined by their inverse, or $\nu(y)$, functions:

436:  \beq \tilde\nu_{\a}(y)=(1-e^{-y})^{-1/2}+\a e^{-y}, \label{vi}\eeq

437:  with its corresponding $\tilde\mu_{\a}(x)$,

438: and

439:  \beq

440:  \bar\nu_{\a}(y)\equiv(1-e^{-y^\a})^{(-1/2\a)}+(1-1/2\a)e^{-y^\a},\label{vii}\eeq

441:  with the corresponding $\bar\mu_{\a}$.

442: At small $y$ this third family goes as

443: $y^{-1/2}+y^{\a-1/2}/4\a+1-1/2\a$. The choice of $\a$ permits a very

444: fast transition to the Newtonian regime near $y=1$.

445: 

446: 

447: These choices do not follow from any physical considerations. [In

448: fact, at present, we know of no concrete theoretical considerations

449: that can dictate the form of $\mu(x)$.] They do not even span the

450: whole range of possibilities. We only use them to show the variety

451: that is possible and to demonstrate the sensitivity of the ring

452: phenomenon to the exact choice.

453: 

454: 

455: There are some constraints on the interpolating function: $\mu\rar

456: 1$ for $x\rar\infty$ is dictated by Newtonian correspondence

457: (although the way in which mu approaches 1 is not known, but enters

458: crucially into phenomena such as solar system effects). The limit

459: $\mu\rar x$ for $x\rar0$ is dictated by the basic premises of MOND

460: (it insures asymptotically flat rotation curves for isolated

461: systems). Another requirement is that $\hat\mu(x)\equiv

462: dln(\mu)/dln(x)>-1$ everywhere. This is the ellipticity condition

463: for the Lagrangian theory field equation. It is tantamount to the

464: sign definiteness of the Hessian of the Lagrangian as a function of

465: the components of $\grad\phi$) and insures uniqueness of the

466: solution under the Dirichlet and/or Neumann boundary condition (e.g.

467: Milgrom 1986a). This condition also says that $x\mu(x)$ [and

468: equivalently $y\nu(y)$] is a monotonic function, which is required

469: for the above algebraic relation, eqs.(\ref{ii})(\ref{iia}), between

470: $\vg$ and $\vg_N$ to have a unique solution. Beyond this requirement

471: the form of $\mu$ is free at the moment and we can only hope to use

472: the data to constrain it.

473: 

474: 

475: Zhao and Famaey (2006) have pointed out that in the formulation of

476: TeVeS in Bekenstein (2004) the effective interpolating function

477: $\mu_e(x)$ has to approach 1 rather slowly in the high acceleration

478: limit. Their argument is best paraphrased in terms of the $\nu$

479: function: If $\nu$ is that of the scalar field in TeVeS, then

480: $\nu_e(y)=\nu(y)+1$ is the effective function for the full gravity.

481: At small $y$, $\nu\approx y^{-1/2}$ as dictated by MOND, so

482: $y\nu(y)$ is increasing there. But the ellipticity condition says

483: that $y\nu(y)$ has to be a monotonic function; so it must remain

484: increasing, and hence $\nu$ cannot vanish faster than $a/y$ at large

485: $y$. So, in turn, $\nu_e$ cannot approach 1 faster than that. Since

486: $\mu(x)=1/\nu(y)$, and for $y\gg1$ $x\approx y$, it follows that

487: also $\mu(x)$ has to approach 1 no faster than $a/x$ (see also

488: Famaey et al. 2007b for a discussion of this constraint and for ways

489: to relax it). None of the interpolating functions considered above

490: satisfy this requirement except for $\mu_1$.  We, however, ignore

491: this kind of constraint. It is exactly this behavior that

492: potentially gets TeVeS in trouble with solar system and binary

493: pulsar constraints (see e.g. the detailed discussion in Bruneton and

494: Esposito-Farese 2007). So, a working version of TeVeS may well have

495: to have this aspect of it expurgated. It may be possible to dispose

496: of this constraint altogether by considering a theory with other

497: potentials. For example the relativistic version of Zlosnik Ferreira

498: \& Starkman 2007 doesn't seem to require this behavior. From a

499: theoretical point of view, there remains complete freedom to choose

500: the form of $\mu$ so long as the basic constraints outlined above or

501: satisfied.

502: 

503: 

504: We show in Fig. \ref{fig1} the forms of $\mu, ~\nu$, and the

505: Lagrangian function $F(z)$ for two choices of the parameter in

506: each family. We see that for ${\tilde\mu}_\a$ and ${\bar\mu}_\a$

507: the approach to 1 can be as gradual as ${\mu}_1$ in the MOND

508: regime, but then with a rather more rapid transition when

509: $a/\az>1$.

510: 

511: 

512: We can classify the interpolating functions according to several

513: attributes: how fast $\mu(x)$ approaches 1 for very high values of

514: $x$ (this is important for calculating the MOND correction in highly

515: Newtonian systems, such as the solar system, and is not crucial

516: here); how far $\mu(x)$ stays near 1 as $x$ approaches $x=1$ from

517: above; how fast $\mu(x)$ departs from the initial $\mu\sim x$ at low

518: values of $x$. All of the attributes affect the appearance of the

519: ring at $r_t$, and within each of the one-parameter families it is

520: that one parameter that controls all aspects. To be able to explore

521: the different attributes separately we consider these three

522: families.

523: 

524: 

525: \begin{figure}

526: \begin{tabular}{rl}

527: \tabularnewline

528: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f1a.eps} &

529: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f1b.eps}\\

530: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f1c.eps}\\

531: %\tabularnewline \R{{\footnotesize }}\tabularnewline

532: \end{tabular}

533: \caption{The form of $\mu(x)$, $\nu(y)$, and the Lagrangian function

534: $F(z)$  for $\mu_1$ (solid), $\mu_2$ (dashed), $\tilde\mu_{0.5}$

535: (dotted) $\tilde\mu_1$ (dash-dot), $\bar\mu_{2}$ (circles) and

536: $\bar\mu_3$ (stars).} \label{fig1}

537: \end{figure}

538: 

539: 

540: To demonstrate the ability of rotation curve analysis to

541: discriminate between the interpolating functions, we show in Fig.

542: \ref{fig2} the rotation curves for a pure exponential disc and pure

543: de Vaucouleurs sphere of different scale lengths and for different

544: choices of the interpolating function. We see that with the more

545: extreme forms in our sample one even expects to see an orphan

546: feature directly in the rotation curve of galaxies with high enough

547: surface densities, or mean acceleration. (An orphan feature is one

548: that is not directly dictated by the underlying source distribution

549: and hence does not appear on the Newtonian rotation curve.) A more

550: systematic study of this point is required to insure that we adopt a

551: form of $\mu$ that is compatible with rotation curve analysis (and

552: see section 5 for a beginning of such analysis). We reemphasize,

553: however, that the forms of $\mu$ we use here are not suggested as

554: real candidates. We chose them essentially to span some range of

555: behaviors so that we can demonstrate the dependence of the ring

556: phenomenon on $\mu$, although some of the new forms of $\mu$ do seem

557: to do better for high acceleration galaxies (see section 5) as well

558: as being more favorable for the visibility of the "ring".

559: 

560: 

561: 

562: \begin{figure}

563: \begin{tabular}{rl}

564: \tabularnewline

565: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f2a.eps}  &

566: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f2b.eps}\\

567: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f2c.eps}  &

568: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f2d.eps}\\

569: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f2e.eps}  &

570: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f2f.eps}\\

571: %\tabularnewline \R{{\footnotesize }}\tabularnewline

572: \end{tabular}

573: \caption{MOND rotation curves for de Vaucouleurs spheres (left) and

574: exponential discs (right). The former (from top to bottom) for

575: effective radii 2, 1, 1/6  (all in units of the transition radius);

576: the latter (from top to bottom) for scale lengths 3, 1, 1/5 . The

577: different curves are for different interpolating functions: $\mu_1$

578: (solid), $\mu_2$ (dashed), $\tilde\mu_{0.5}$ (dotted) $\tilde\mu_1$

579: (dash-dot), $\bar\mu_{2}$ (circles) and $\bar\mu_3$ (stars).}

580:  \label{fig2}

581: \end{figure}

582: 

583: 

584: 

585: 

586: \subsection{Structure along the line of sight}

587: 

588: 

589: The thin-lens approximation, so useful in conventional dynamics,

590: does not apply in MOND : Because of the inherent nonlinearity of

591: MOND, even in the nonrelativistic limit, two (``baryonic'') mass

592: distributions having the same projected surface density

593: distributions for a given line of sight, do not, in general, have

594: the same surface densities of the corresponding PDM (Mortlock and

595: Turner 2001, Milgrom 2002). For example, as explained in Milgrom

596: (2001) $N$ equal masses well separated along the line of sight

597: produce, in the deep MOND regime,  a deflection angle, for a given

598: impact parameter, that is $\sqrt{N}$ times larger than when the $N$

599: masses are melded in one. Such effects will be clearly shown by our

600: numerical results below.

601: 

602: It should be emphasized that for gravitational lensing in a theory

603: such as TeVeS, the relation between the deflection of photons and

604: the total weak field force is the same as that in General

605: Relativity.  This means that the surface density derived for the PDM

606: (using, for example, the lens convergence estimated from the

607: observed shear) is identical to that obtained by integrating the

608: density of the PDM along the line of sight.

609: 

610: The discussion above eq.(\ref{xxi}) tells us that for two mass

611: distributions of the same total (true) mass we have

612:  \beq \int_0^R[\S_1(R')-\S_2(R')]R'^2~dR'\rar 0, \label{xxiii}\eeq

613:  in the limit $R\rar\infty$.

614: 

615: \section{Examples}

616: 

617: 

618: \subsection{Spherical lenses}

619: Here we discuss the simple case of a spherical lens represented by a

620: point mass; so that our results can be applied directly everywhere

621: outside any spherical mass. In this case, since $g_N=r^{-2}$, we

622: have

623:  \beq 4\pi\rho_p=r^{-2}{d(r^2g)\over dr}=r^{-2}{d[\nu(r^{-2})]\over

624:  dr}=-2\nu'(r^{-2})r^{-5}. \label{x}\eeq

625: 

626: We show in Fig. \ref{fig3} the surface density of the PDM for a

627: point mass with different choices of $\mu$. We see that the

628: occurrence of a maximum leading to the appearance of a ring is

629: rather generic. Of all the choices of $\mu$ shown in the figure  a

630: maximum at a finite radius does not appear only for $\mu_1$ and

631: $\mu_{3/2}$. This is easy to understand: For this form of $\mu$ we

632: have in the high acceleration limit $g\approx

633: g_N+\a^{-1}g_N^{(1-\a)}$. Since $g_N\propto r^{-2}$, we have

634: $\rho_p\propto r^{2\a-3}$. So for $\a\le 3/2$ there is no ``hole''

635: in the PDM density, and a maximum can appear only for $\a>3/2$. We

636: also see that the radius (in units of $r_t$), the height, and the

637: contrast of the maximum depend rather sensitively on the properties

638: of the interpolating function. The location of the peak is

639: controlled mainly by the approximate $x$ value at which $\mu(x)$

640: approaches 1 (in the vicinity of $x=1$, not in the far asymptotic

641: regime). So, for example, the limiting case $\mu_{\infty}$ produces

642: a maximum at $r=1$, which is the largest for all the functions we

643: study here. For the other forms of $\mu$ we use it goes near a value

644: of 1 for $x>1$; accordingly, the ring occurs at $r<r_t$. The height

645: of the peak is sensitive to how low $\mu(x)$ stays for values of

646: $x<1$. With this guidelines one can construct $\mu$ forms to

647: engineer the ring properties. To recapitulate, the formation of the

648: apparent ring is generic if the mass is centrally condensed with

649: respect to $r_t$. It is not produced only for some special forms of

650: $\mu$ such as ${\mu}_\a$ with $\a \le 3/2$.

651: 

652: 

653: \begin{figure}

654: \begin{tabular}{rl}

655: \tabularnewline

656: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f3a.eps} &

657: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f3b.eps}\\

658: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f3c.eps}\\

659: %\tabularnewline \R{{\footnotesize }}\tabularnewline

660: \end{tabular}

661: \caption{The MOND predicted PDM surface density, in units of

662: $\Sz$, for a point mass with different forms of the MOND function.

663: Top left: $\mu_{\a}$ with $\a=1,~3/2,~2,~4,~50$ (the higher $\a$

664: the lower $\Sigma $ at low radii). Right: $\tilde\mu_{\a}$ with

665: $\a=0.25,~0.5,~1$ (the higher $\a$ the higher $\Sigma$). Bottom

666: left: $\bar\mu_{\a}$ with $\a=0.5$ (solid), $\a=1$ (dashed),

667: $\a=2$ (dotted), $\a=3$ (dot-dash).} \label{fig3}

668: \end{figure}

669: 

670: 

671: 

672: 

673: \subsection{Aligned dumbbell lenses}

674: 

675: Here, for simplicity, we still use the algebraic relation,

676: eqs.(\ref{ii})(\ref{iia}), even though it is not exact anymore. We

677: show in  Fig. \ref{fig4} the predicted surface density of the PDM

678: for two equal point masses aligned with the line of sight for

679: different separations, and different choices of the interpolating

680: function. Figure \ref{fig4} [together with Fig.(\ref{fig5})]

681: demonstrates clearly that the thin-lens approximation is not valid

682: in MOND as all the mass models it describes have the same projected

683: (baryonic) mass. They all give the same result at radii much larger

684: than the separation (where they all act like a point mass); but at

685: smaller radii elongation of the mass along the line of sight

686: enhances the lensing signal (see Milgrom 2002). When the separation

687: is much smaller than 1 (the individual transition radius) the system

688: acts like one point mass of value 2, whose transition radius is thus

689: $2^{1/2}$; however, as regards the normalization, the resulting

690: surface density of the PDM is the same as that of a single mass (as

691: this does not depend on the mass). In the other extreme, when the

692: separation is much larger than 1, the PDM surface density is simply

693: double that of a single mass in magnitude, and it has the same

694: radial distribution. This is also in line with relation

695: (\ref{xxiii}).

696: 

697: 

698: For brevity's sake we show only results for equal masses. Clearly,

699: with unequal masses a more complex profile results, with possibly

700: two maxima.

701: 

702: 

703: Note that for some separations and some forms of $\mu$, the PDM

704: surface density profile shows an upturn towards small radii. This is

705: another orphan feature of MOND connected with the vicinity of the

706: point where $g=0$.

707: 

708: 

709: 

710: 

711: \begin{figure}

712: \begin{tabular}{rl}

713: \tabularnewline

714: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f4a.eps} &

715: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f4b.eps}\\

716: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f4c.eps} &

717: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f4d.eps}\\

718: 

719: %\tabularnewline \R{{\footnotesize }}\tabularnewline

720: \end{tabular}

721: \caption{The MOND predicted PDM surface density, in units of

722: $\Sz$, for two equal point masses along the line of sight

723: separated by 0 (solid), 0.5 (dashed), 1 (dotted), 4

724: (dashed-dotted), 20 (circles) transition radii for the total mass.

725: For $\mu_2$ (upper left), $\tilde\mu_{0.5}$ (upper right),

726: $\tilde\mu_{1}$ (lower left), and $\bar\mu_3$ (lower right).}

727: \label{fig4}

728: \end{figure}

729: 

730: 

731: 

732: \subsection{A thin mass rod along the line of sight}

733: 

734:  Consider a mass $M$ of constant density, with

735: diameter $D$ and length $L$ aligned with the line of sight. Assume

736: that $D/2\ll r_t= (MG/\az)^{1/2}$ (we shall take $D=0$). For there

737: to be an enhanced effect over a point mass we have to have $L\gg

738: r_t$, then the mass will act roughly like

739: $N=L/r_t=(MG/L^2\az)^{-1/2}$ separate masses each of value $m\equiv

740: M/N$. The effect of increasing $N$ is thus to bring closer the

741: radius of the maximum and at the same time raise its height, also in

742: line with eq.(\ref{xxiii}).

743: 

744: 

745: Again, taking as an example the $\mu_{\a}$ family, in the high

746: acceleration limit we have $g\approx g_N+\a^{-1}g_N^{(1-\a)}$. For

747: small $N$ we are basically still in the point mass limit. But for

748: large N, when we are near the mass, the field is approximately that

749: of an infinite wire; so $g_N\propto r^{-1}$. We then have

750: $\rho_p\propto r^{\a-2}$; so, now the limiting value of $\a$ (for

751: getting a "hole") for large $N$ is $\a=2$.

752: 

753: We show in Fig. \ref{fig5} the projected phantom surface density

754: for different values of $N$ and for various interpolating

755: functions.

756: 

757: 

758: 

759: \begin{figure}

760: \begin{tabular}{rl}

761: \tabularnewline

762: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f5a.eps}  &

763: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f5b.eps}\\

764: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f5c.eps}  &

765: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f5d.eps}\\

766: %\tabularnewline \R{{\footnotesize }}\tabularnewline

767: \end{tabular}

768: \caption{The MOND predicted PDM surface density, in units of

769: $\Sz$, for a line mass of different lengths $N=1,~2,~4,~6,~8$ (in

770: units of the transition radius; higher peak $\Sigma$ for higher

771: $N$). Different interpolating functions are used: $\mu_{2.2}$ (top

772: left), $\mu_3$ (top right), $\tilde\mu_{0.5}$ (bottom left), and

773: $\bar\mu_{3}$ (bottom right). } \label{fig5}

774: \end{figure}

775: 

776: 

777: 

778: \section{Possible relevance to Cl 0024+17}

779: 

780:  Jee et al. (2007) offer an explanation of the apparent ring in Cl

781: 0024+17 in terms of an actual ring of dark matter, in 3-D, produced

782: by a past collision of two clusters occurring along the line of

783: sight. The two clusters are now separated from each other. Jee et

784: al. adduce cogent evidence to show that the cluster is indeed

785: composed of (at least) two separate structures along the line of

786: sight (bi-modality of the galaxy velocity distribution, and a

787: factor-of-2 discrepancy between the masses deduced from X-ray

788: analysis and from weak lensing). Famaey et al. (2007a) give a

789: similar explanation in the framework of MOND building on the fact

790: that MOND too requires DM in the cores of clusters. The past

791: collision is a necessary ingredient in these explanations.  Our

792: mechanism depends only on the present mass distribution and cares

793: little as to whether or not there occurred a collision in the

794: system. (Although in some unknown way the collision could have

795: created a special mass distribution that is expedient to a ring

796: formation.)

797: 

798: 

799:  As stated above, galaxy clusters are required to contain

800: large quantities of as yet undetected matter, even in the context of

801: MOND. Direct observations thus do not tell us how much conventional

802: (MOND source) matter there is in the cluster and how it is

803: distributed. In addition, as we explained above, the actual

804: distribution of that mass in 3-D is very crucial, and this can

805: certainly not be deduced from the observations. For these reasons,

806: and because we do not know the exact form of the interpolating

807: function, we are not in the position to construct a specific model

808: for the ring in Cl 0024+17 (Jee et al. also do not have a specific

809: model only a plausibility scenario, as the required details of the

810: underlying collision are not known). Instead, we want to see only if

811: the observed parameters of the ring can naturally result from the

812: mechanism that we discuss here.

813: 

814: 

815: The surface density distribution deduced by Jee et al. (2007) is

816: unusual for single clusters: It is characterized by a very

817: concentrated component followed by an almost constant surface

818: density out to the last measured point; the ring appears on the

819: background of this plateau. As stated above it is the fact that

820: there is a central concentrated component that is conducive to ring

821: appearance.

822: 

823: There are four observables that we want to reproduce in rough terms:

824: the radius at the ring maximum, the mass within that radius, the

825: surface density at the location of the maximum, and the contrast of

826: the ring. Jee et al. give the radius of the ring (presumably that of

827: the maximum) as $400\kpc$ (75"). According to our previous results

828: this should be some fraction of the transition radius. So $r_t$

829: would be typically between $500 \kpc$ (if $r/r_t=0.8$) and

830: $1600\kpc$ if ($r/r_t=.25$). We have

831: 

832: \beq r_t=833(M/5\times

833: 10^{14}\msun)^{1/2}(\az/10^{-8}\cmst)^{-1/2}\kpc, \label{xx}\eeq so

834: the required (projected) mass inside the ring would be somewhere

835: between $2\times 10^{14}\msun$ and $20\times 10^{14}\msun$. This are

836: only rough estimates but they do define the right ballpark, as the

837: projected dynamical mass within the radius of the maximum, according

838: to Fig. 12 of Jee et al.,  is $\sim 8\times 10^{14}\msun$ and that

839: within the observed minimum (at 50") is $\sim 4\times 10^{14}\msun$.

840: 

841:  The critical surface density with respect to

842: which Jee et al. plot their deduced surface densities: $\Sigma_c =

843: c^2(4GD)^{-1} = 0.35\gcmt(D/1 \gpc)^{-1}$, where $D =

844: D_dD_{ds}/D_s$; the $D$s are angular diameter distances to the lens

845: (d), the source (s), and between the two (ds). Jee et al. use for

846: the fiducial red-shift of the source  $z=3$. We take $D_{ds}\sim

847: D_s$, and deduce $D_d$ by noting that they quote the radius of the

848: ring as

849:  $400\kpc=75"$. This gives $D\approx

850: 1.1 \gpc$. So $\Sigma_c \sim 0.32\gcmt$. Since $\Sz\sim 0.15\gcmt$

851: (for $\az=10^{-8}\cmst$), $\Sigma_c\approx 2\Sz$. Jee et al. find at

852: the location of the ring  $\Sigma\sim 0.7\Sigma_c\sim 0.22 \gcmt\sim

853: 1.5\Sz$.  From Fig. 10 of Jee et al. we read for the ring contrast a

854: difference between minimum and maximum of $\sim 0.06\Sz$. This is

855: rather easy to achieve.

856: 

857: 

858: As examples of a configurations that roughly reproduce the Jee et

859: al. parameters we show in Fig. \ref{fig6} the total projected mass

860: density of simple models for a few (favorable) forms of the

861: interpolating function. These are not generic but where

862: constructed to demonstrate that MOND can reproduce an observed

863: surface distribution like the one observed.

864: 

865: 

866: Concentrating on the dumbbell results in the upper Fig. \ref{fig6}

867: we see that $\S$ values comparable with those deduced by Jee et al.

868: can be achieved. Identifying the positions of the peak in the case

869: of this dumbbell in Fig. \ref{fig6} ($0.585r_t$, and $0.65r_t$ for

870: $\bar\mu_2$ and $\bar\mu_3$ respectively) with that observed

871: ($400\kpc$) gives the total true (MOND) mass of the dumbbell as

872: $3.4\times 10^{14}\msun$, and $2.7\times 10^{14}\msun$,

873: respectively. According to our calculations, the integrated,

874: projected Newtonian dynamical mass (true plus phantom) within the

875: minimum in the above models is about 1.4  times the true source

876: mass; so, in absolute terms it comes out to $\sim 4.8\times

877: 10^{14}\msun$, and $3.8\times 10^{14}\msun$, respectively, to be

878: compared with $4\times 10^{14}\msun$, which Jee et al. find within

879: the minimum. Mind you though that these are only indicative figures.

880: We also emphasize that the true (MOND) mass we require is still much

881: larger than the observed mass in gas and stars. From the $\beta$

882: model fit of Zhang et al. (2005), we estimate the gas mass within a

883: projected radius of 400 kpc to be $\sim 2.5\times 10^{13}\msun$; the

884: total mass of stars and gas together could be as large as $\sim

885: 4\times 10^{13}$ M$_\odot$ (although it is difficult to estimate the

886: actual gas mass in this presumably double system). Therefore, as in

887: other clusters, MOND still requires a significant quantity of

888: undetected matter in the core (Sanders 2007). But the ``ring'' is

889: not made of this, of course.

890: 

891: 

892: Finally, we note that there are other mass configurations that can

893: achieve the same apparent surface density distribution; for

894: example, take the single sphere case in Fig. \ref{fig6} on the

895: background of a constant-surface density distribution along the

896: line of sight.

897: 

898: 

899: 

900: \begin{figure}

901: \begin{tabular}{rl}

902: \tabularnewline

903: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f6a.eps} &

904: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f6b.eps}\\

905: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f6c.eps} &

906: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f6d.eps}\\

907: %\tabularnewline \R{{\footnotesize }}\tabularnewline

908: \end{tabular}

909: \caption{The total projected Surface density in units of $\Sz$.

910: Upper left: for a single sphere of constant density with a radius

911: that is 0.6 the transition radius. Upper right: for two spheres of

912: constant density far apart from each other along the line of sight,

913: each has a radius that is 0.6 of its own transition radius. Lower

914: left: for two concentric spheres of constant densities of masses 1

915: and 0.3  and radii 0.53 and 0.35 of the total transition radius. All

916: these for two interpolating functions: $\bar\mu_2$ (solid) and

917: $\bar\mu_3$ (dashed). In each case the baryon contribution alone is

918: shown as the dotted line. Lower right: a dumbbell of two equal

919: spherical masses of constant density far apart along the line of

920: sight with $\mu_{10}$ (the source, baryon, contribution in dashed

921: line). For Cl 0024+17 the shear is $\kappa\approx 0.5\Sigma/\Sz$.}

922:  \label{fig6}

923: \end{figure}

924: 

925: 

926: 

927: 

928: \section{Shells and rings in galaxies}

929: 

930: The present discussion was prompted by the observation of a ring in

931: a galaxy cluster. But, of course,  the MOND orphan, transition

932: feature may appear in various ways also in  high surface brightness

933: (HSB) galaxies. A galaxy is dubbed HSB in the MOND sense if its

934: surface brightness is so high that the parameter $\xi\equiv

935: (MG/\ell^2\az)^{1/2}=r_t/\ell\gg 1$, where $\ell$ is the scale

936: length of the galaxy, say the half light radius for an elliptical

937: galaxy, or the exponential scale-length of a disc. In this case the

938: bulk of the baryonic mass is contained within the transition radius

939: and there is then a good chance for the appearance of a pronounced

940: feature. In fact, there is already evidence that in some HSB

941: galaxies the PDM distribution has a hole surrounding the center of

942: the galaxy. For example, this is the case for the Milky Way itself

943: (Bissantz, Englmaier \& Gerhard 2003). It has also been shown to

944: apply to some elliptical galaxies (Romanowsky et al. 2003, Milgrom

945: \& Sanders 2003). To demonstrate the expectations from one of the

946: galaxies in the study of Romanowsky et al. (2003), we show in Fig.

947: \ref{fig7} the projected surface density of the PDM alone and of the

948: total for a de Vaucouleurs sphere with $\xi=5.7$, appropriate for

949: NGC 3379 (Milgrom \& Sanders 2003). Had we had the means of

950: obtaining the dynamical surface density distributions of such

951: galaxies we would expect to see an analog of the ring in them (the

952: surface density is a semi-local quantity--density integrated only

953: along the line of sight--in which features appear more distinctly).

954: However, the presently applied methods of mapping the potential

955: field are not good at deducing the local surface densities. This is

956: certainly true of measuring the potential field via velocity

957: dispersion curves of test particles (as in Romanowsky et al. 2003).

958: The most accurate method to date for mapping the potential field of

959: disc galaxies is via rotation curve analysis. Can the transition

960: feature be seen directly on the rotation curve, which measures

961: volume integrated masses? Looking at Fig. \ref{fig2} we see that the

962: forms of interpolating function that are most conducive to the

963: visibility of a ring in the surface density distribution (e.g.

964: $\bar\mu_\alpha$ with $\alpha \ge 2$) could produce features in the

965: rotation curve that are not related to the underlying observable

966: mass distribution--i.e., orphan features--provided the galaxy is an

967: HSB one. Such a feature, which according to MOND can appear only in

968: HSB galaxies, and only at the location of the MOND transition, is to

969: be distinguished from the many known rotation-curve features whose

970: origin can be traced to features in the mass distribution. The

971: latter can appear in all galaxies and anywhere in a galaxy and,

972: unlike the orphan feature, they show up in the Newtonian rotation

973: curve (without DM). A famous case in point is the feature in NGC

974: 1560 (Broeils 1992).

975: 

976: 

977: Of course, the transition from a Keplerian to a constant rotational

978: speed is itself a MOND transition feature; but, it is less

979: distinctive than a marked dip, and much less discriminative among

980: the various forms of the interpolating function.

981: 

982: 

983: Until recently, almost all disc galaxies with reported rotation

984: curves and MOND analysis had $\xi\le 1$; for these the form of the

985: interpolating function makes very little difference in the

986: predicted rotation curve; in particular, there is no prediction of

987: an appreciable orphan feature on the rotation curve. This lack of

988: data and analysis has been remedied by Sanders \& Noordermeer

989: (2007). They presented MOND analysis of a sample of HSBs, using

990: $\mu_1$ for their MOND fits; this, as we saw, does not produce a

991: distinct feature even under the most favorable conditions [Figs.

992: \ref{fig2}-\ref{fig3}, and the discussion below eq.(\ref{x})].

993: 

994: 

995: On the other hand there where indeed some features on the observed

996: rotation curves that where not reproduced by the MOND curves in the

997: analysis of Sanders and Noordermeer (2007). (These are also not

998: explained by cold dark matter (CDM) fits, such as NFW profiles; see

999: Noordermeer 2006.) We have now analyzed some of these galaxies with

1000: choices of $\mu$ from our new arsenal. Interestingly, some these

1001: reproduce the previously unexplained orphan features.

1002: 

1003: 

1004: Figure \ref{fig8} shows the observed rotation curves of four spiral

1005: galaxies: UGC 128, a low surface brightness (LSB) galaxy with

1006: $\xi<1$ (Sanders 1996); NGC 6503, a ``normal'' disc galaxy with $\xi

1007: \approx 1$ (Begeman et al. 1991); and two HSB galaxies from the

1008: sample of Sanders \& Noordermeer (2007) with $\xi>1$.  We show the

1009: curves predicted by MOND from the observed mass distribution using

1010: both $\mu_1$ (reproducing the fits of Noordermeer and Sanders) and

1011: $\bar\mu_2$. We see that for the first two galaxies (with $\xi\le

1012: 1$) there is very little difference between the two predictions; and

1013: there are no orphan features to be found. However, for the two HSB

1014: galaxies, there is a clear indication of an orphan feature in the

1015: observed curves at the point near the transition from the Newtonian

1016: regime to the MOND regime. Moreover, this feature is reproduced by

1017: $\bar\mu_2$ but not by $\mu_1$. However, E. Noordermeer (2007,

1018: private communication) warns that these galaxies are barred and that

1019: the dips in the rotation curves may be due to non-circular motions,

1020: and not to true features of the potential field.

1021: \par

1022: While the MOND rotation curves of LSB galaxies are quite insensitive

1023: to the form of the interpolating function, those of HSB galaxies are

1024: rather sensitive. This raises the possibility that with the new

1025: forms of $\mu$ studied here we may solve a long standing problem

1026: concerning NGC 2841. This is an HSB galaxy that has posed a puzzle

1027: in the context of MOND. Begeman Broeils \& Sanders (1991), and more

1028: recently Bottema \& al. (2002), found that a very good MOND fit for

1029: the rotation curve of this galaxy is obtained if the galaxy is at a

1030: distance somewhat larger than 20\mpc. Putting it at its Hubble

1031: distance of $9.46\mpc$ (as in the former analysis), or even at the

1032: more recently determined Cepheid distance of $14.1\pm1.5\mpc$ (as in

1033: the latter analysis) gave an inferior fit. Both analyses used

1034: $\mu_2$. We now find that with some of our new interpolating

1035: functions, which are also expedient for ring formation, the MOND fit

1036: is very good for the Cepheid distance of NGC 2841. We show in Fig.

1037: \ref{fig9} the fit with $\mu_2$, reproducing the old conundrum, and

1038: we see that using $\mu_1$ alleviates the discrepancy somewhat but

1039: not completely. The forms $\bar\mu_2$ and $\bar\mu_{1.5}$ do a much

1040: better job. This may then be the correct solution to the puzzle: not

1041: to put NGC 2841 at a larger distance but to use a more appropriate

1042: form of $\mu$ (a combination of the two is also possible, of

1043: course). It should be noted, however, that the larger distance of

1044: $23\mpc$ is indicated both by the Tully-Fisher (TF) relation and by

1045: a type Ia supernova in NGC 2841; so the issue remains moot.

1046: \par

1047: To summarize, we may have evidence from rotation curves that the

1048: form of the interpolating function conducive to the appearance of a

1049: ring of phantom matter, may also be that which is appropriate for

1050: the matching of rotation curves in HSB (and LSB) discs. We can also

1051: tentatively identify the previously unexplained dips in the observed

1052: rotation curves of UGC 3546 and UGC 11670 as the orphan features

1053: associated with the MOND transition.

1054: 

1055: \par

1056: Famaey \& Binney (2005) found in their MOND analysis of the Milky

1057: Way rotation curve, that it is best fitted with a $\mu$ form that

1058: starts as $\mu_1(x)$ at small $x$, then increase faster and become

1059: similar to $\mu_2(x)$ at larger $x$. Our $\bar\mu_2,~\bar\mu_3$ also

1060: start as $\mu_1$ at small x and then go quickly to 1 (but rather

1061: more quickly than in the form used by Famaey and Binney).

1062: 

1063: \par

1064: The time is becoming ripe for a comprehensive MOND analysis of

1065: rotation curves, and other data, to better constrain the form of the

1066: interpolating function. The inclusion of the consideration of the

1067: orphan, MOND-transition feature adds a new dimension to this sort of

1068: analysis.

1069: 

1070: 

1071: 

1072: \begin{figure}

1073: \begin{tabular}{rl}

1074: \tabularnewline

1075: 

1076: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f7a.eps} &

1077: \includegraphics[width=0.5\columnwidth]{f7b.eps}\\

1078: 

1079: %\tabularnewline \R{{\footnotesize }}\tabularnewline

1080: \end{tabular}

1081: \caption{The projected Surface density, in units of $\Sz$, for a de

1082: Vaucouleurs model with $R_e=r_t/5.7 $, appropriate for NGC 3379. On

1083: the left is shown the PDM alone, and or the right the total. The

1084: interpolating functions used are: $\mu_2$ (solid), $\mu_{50}$

1085: (dashed), $\tilde\mu_1$ (dotted), $\tilde\mu_2$ (dashed-dotted),

1086: $\bar\mu_1$ (circles), $\bar\mu_2$ (crosses), $\bar\mu_3$ (stars).}

1087: \label{fig7}

1088: \end{figure}

1089: 

1090: %

1091: \begin{figure}

1092: \begin{tabular}{rl}

1093: \tabularnewline

1094: \includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{f8.eps}  \\

1095: %\tabularnewline \R{{\footnotesize }}\tabularnewline

1096: \end{tabular}

1097: \caption{MOND rotation curves for four galaxies.  UGC 128 is a low

1098: surface brightness galaxy (Sanders 1996); NGC 6503 is a typical

1099: spiral galaxy with average surface brightness (Begeman et al. 1991);

1100: UGC 3546 and UGC 11670 are two high surface brightness galaxies from

1101: the sample of Noordermeer (Sanders \& Noordermeer 2007).  The points

1102: with error bars are the observations. Also shown are the calculated

1103: rotation curves: MOND for $\bar\mu_2$ (solid thick), and MOND for

1104: $\mu_1$ (solid thin). The best fit $M/L$ values in solar units are:

1105: 1.0 for UGC 128 (disc only, both fits); 0.9 for NGC 6503 (disc only,

1106: both fits). UGC 3546: 2.5 (disc) and 7.0 (bulge) for $\bar\mu_2$,

1107: 2.5 (disc) and 5.9 (bulge)  for $\mu_1$. UGC 11670: 2.5 (disc) and

1108: 4.5 (bulge) for $\bar\mu_2$, 3.0 (disc) and 3.5 (bulge) for $\mu_1$.

1109: Newtonian curves (dotted) are given for the $M/L$ values from the

1110: $\bar\mu_2$ fits.}

1111:  \label{fig8}

1112: \end{figure}

1113: %

1114: 

1115: \begin{figure}

1116: \begin{tabular}{rl}

1117: \tabularnewline

1118: \includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{f9.eps}  \\

1119: %\tabularnewline \R{{\footnotesize }}\tabularnewline

1120: \end{tabular}

1121: \caption{The MOND rotation curves of NGC 2841 for different choices

1122: of the interpolating function compared with the data (points). The

1123: best fit $M/L$ values in solar units are given below in parentheses

1124: for the disc and bulge respectively. Upper panel: $\mu_2$ in dashed

1125: line (8.1, 1.0); $\mu_1$ in solid line (4.9, 2.5); Newtonian curve

1126: with $M/L$ values for $\mu_1$ (dotted). Lower panel: $\bar\mu_2$ in

1127: dashed line (5.4, 2.8); $\bar\mu_{1.5}$ in solid line (5.4, 2.8);

1128: Newtonian curve (dotted).}

1129:  \label{fig9}

1130: \end{figure}

1131: 

1132: \section{Summary and Discussion}

1133: We have shown that, under certain conditions, the PDM distribution

1134: in MOND exhibits a maximum along some surface whose scale is largely

1135: determined by the MOND transition radius of the underlying

1136: (baryonic) mass. This appears without there being a corresponding

1137: feature in the underlying source distribution. In axisymmetric

1138: configurations aligned with the line of sight this can appear as a

1139: ring of DM at that radius, which is unrelated to a length scale

1140: characterizing the source. This is expected to hold in any theory of

1141: modified dynamics (not only MOND) at the radius that marks the

1142: transition from the Newtonian regime to the modified regime.

1143: For example, in theories where the transition to modified gravity

1144: occurs at a fixed length scale, the feature would appear at

1145: that length scale regardless of the mass of the object.

1146: 

1147: Thus, the statement of Jee et al. (2007) to the effect that the

1148: appearance of such an orphan feature is a direct proof of DM, and

1149: that it disagrees with modified dynamics interpretation, is

1150: incorrect. In fact, the observed parameters of the observed ring in

1151: the galaxy cluster Cl 0024+17 (radius, surface density, contrast,

1152: and the mass involved) can be naturally reproduced with this pure

1153: MOND phenomenon. The Jee et al. ring may thus turn out to constitute

1154: a direct evidence for MOND in action.

1155: 

1156: 

1157: For a mass that is well contained within its transition radius, the

1158: ring appears quite generically and for a wide range of MOND

1159: interpolating functions. The exact properties of the ring depend,

1160: however, sensitively on the choice of interpolating function; if

1161: enough rings of this type are detected important constraints on that

1162: function may emerge. Because the surface density of the ring cannot,

1163: generically, much exceed $\Sz$ it is easily overwhelmed by the

1164: source distribution itself, and so is not expected to appear very

1165: commonly in the {it total} mass distribution of realistic

1166: configurations (unless we can confidently subtract the underlying

1167: source distribution). The properties of the feature also depend

1168: strongly on the distribution of the source mass along the line of

1169: sight, demonstrating clearly the gross inapplicability of the

1170: thin-lens approximation in MOND.

1171: 

1172: 

1173: We have not considered non-axisymmetric configurations, but it is

1174: expected that in such cases the feature will appear distorted in

1175: shape, perhaps broken or irregular.

1176: 

1177: Furthermore, we found preliminary evidence of a conspicuous orphan

1178: feature (a dip) on the rotation curves of some HSB galaxies, that

1179: can be identified with the transition from the Newtonian regime to

1180: the MOND regime-- a feature predicted by MOND with just the forms of

1181: the interpolating function that are most conducive in our sample to

1182: the appearance of a ring in the PDM surface density distribution.

1183: This calls for a reconsideration of the rotation curves of spiral

1184: galaxies using these alternative forms of the interpolating

1185: function, and possibly others, as well as a systematic study of the

1186: implied PDM density distribution in individual galaxies.

1187: 

1188: 

1189:  Finally, it

1190: should be recalled that we have used the algebraic relation, which

1191: allowed us to treat and compare many cases, but which for

1192: non-spherical systems is only approximate.  In a proper treatment of

1193: gravitational lensing in the context of a theory inspired by TeVeS,

1194: one should solve the non-linear Bekenstein-Milgrom field equation

1195: for a given mass distribution.

1196: 

1197: 

1198: \acknowledgements

1199: This research was supported, in part, by a

1200: center of excellence grant from the Israel Science Foundation.

1201: 

1202: 

1203: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1204: \bibitem [Aguirre, Schaye \& Quataert 2001] {asq} Aguirre A., Schaye

1205: J., \&   Quataert E., 2001, ApJ, 561, 550

1206: \bibitem[Angus Famaey \& Buote 2007]{afb07}Angus, G.W., Famaey, B.,

1207: \& Buote, D.A. 2007, MNRAS, submitted; arXiv:0709.0108

1208: \bibitem[Angus  \& al. 2007]{angus07}Angus, G.W., Shan, H.Y, Zhao, H.S., \& Famaey, B. 2007 ApJ, 654,  L13

1209: \bibitem[Begeman Broeils \& Sanders 1991]{bbs91}

1210:  Begeman, K. G., Broeils, A. H., \& Sanders, R. H. 1991, MNRAS 249, 523

1211: \bibitem[Bekenstein 2004]{bek04}Bekenstein, J.D. 2004, Phys. Rev. D70, 083509

1212: \bibitem[Bekenstein 2006]{bek06}Bekenstein, J.D. 2006, Contemporary Physics 47, 387

1213: \bibitem[Bekenstein \& Milgrom 1984]{bm84} Bekenstein, J. \& Milgrom, M. 1984, ApJ, 286, 7

1214: \bibitem[Bissantz, Englmaier \& Gerhard 2003]{beg03}Bissantz, N.,  Englmaier, P.,  \& Gerhard, O.

1215: 2003, MNRAS 340, 949

1216: \bibitem[Bottema \& al. 2002]{bottema02}Bottema, R., Pesta{\~n}a, J.L.G., Rothberg, B., \& Sanders, R.H.

1217:  2002, AA, 393, 453

1218: \bibitem[Brada \& Milgrom 1999]{brada99}Brada, R. \& Milgrom, M. 1999, ApJ, 512, L17

1219: \bibitem[Broeils 1992]{br92}Broeils, A. H. 1992, AA, 256, 19

1220: \bibitem[Bruneton \& Esposito-Farese ]{bruneton07}Bruneton, J.P. \& Esposito-Farese, G. 2007,

1221: Phys. Rev. D, 76, 124012

1222: \bibitem[Clowe et al. 2006] {cleal} Clowe, D., Bradac, M. Gonzalez, A.H.,

1223:    Marevitch, M., Randall, S.W., Jones, C., \& Zaritsky, D., 2006,

1224:    ApJ, 648, L109

1225: \bibitem[Famaey et al. 2007a]{famaey07a} Famaey, B.,  Angus, G.W.,  Gentile, G., Shan, H.Y., \&

1226: Zhao, H.S. 2007a, AA, submitted,  arXiv:0706.1279

1227: 

1228: \bibitem[Famaey et al. 2007b]{famaey07b} Famaey, B., Gentile, G., Bruneton, J.P., \&

1229: Zhao, H.S. 2007b, Phys. Rev. D 75, 063002

1230: 

1231: \bibitem[Famaey \& Binney 2005]{FB05}Famaey, B. \& Binney, J. 2005,

1232: MNRAS, 363, 603

1233: \bibitem[Gerbal \& al. 1992]{gerbal92}Gerbal, D., Durret, F., Lachieze-Rey, M., \& Lima-Neto, G.

1234: 1992, AA, 262, 395

1235: \bibitem[Jee et al. 2007]{jee07}Jee, M.J., Ford, H.C., Illingworth, G.D., White, R.L.,  Broadhurst, T.J., Coe, D.A.,

1236: Meurer, G.R., Van Der Wel, A., Benitez, N.,  Blakeslee, J.P.

1237: Bouwens, R.J., Bradley, L.D., Demarco, R., Homeier, N.L., Martel,

1238: A.R., \& Mei, S. 2007, ApJ, 661, 728

1239: \bibitem[Kent 1987]{kent87} Kent, S.M. 1987, AJ, 93, 816

1240: \bibitem[Milgrom 1983a]{mil83a} Milgrom, M. 1983a, ApJ, 270, 365

1241: \bibitem[Milgrom 1983b]{mil83b} Milgrom, M. 1983b, ApJ, 270, 371

1242: \bibitem[Milgrom 1986a]{mil86a} Milgrom, M. 1986a, ApJ, 302, 617

1243: \bibitem[Milgrom 1986b]{mil86b} Milgrom, M. 1986b, ApJ, 306, 9

1244: \bibitem[Milgrom 1994]{mil94} Milgrom, M. 1994, Ann. Phys. 229, 384

1245: \bibitem[Milgrom 2001]{mil01} Milgrom, M. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1261

1246: \bibitem[Milgrom 2002]{mil02} Milgrom, M. 2002, New Astronomy Review, 46, 741

1247: \bibitem[Milgrom 2008]{mil08} Milgrom, M. 2008, arXiv:0801.3133; to be published in the Proceedings of the XIX Rencontres de

1248: Blois.

1249: \bibitem[Milgrom \& Sanders 2003]{ms03}Milgrom, M. \& Sanders, R.H. 2003, ApJ, 599, L25

1250: \bibitem[Milgrom \& Sanders 2005]{ms05}Milgrom, M. \& Sanders, R.H. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 45

1251: \bibitem[Mortlock \& Turner 2001]{mt01}Mortlock, D.J. \& Turner, E.L. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 557

1252: \bibitem[Noordermeer 2006]{noord06} Noordermeer 2006, PhD Thesis, University of Groningen

1253: \bibitem[Pointecouteau \& Silk 2005]{ps05}Pointecouteau, E. \& Silk, J. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 654

1254: \bibitem[Romanowsky \& al. 2003]{roman03}Romanowsky, A.J., Douglas, N.G., Arnaboldi,

1255: M., Kuijken, K., Merrifield, M.R. Napolitano, N.R., Capaccioli, M.,

1256: \& Freeman, K.C. 2003, Science, 301, 1696

1257: \bibitem[Sanders 1996] {rhs96} Sanders, R.H. 1996, ApJ, 473, 117

1258: \bibitem[Sanders 1999]{sanders99}Sanders, R.H. 1999, ApJ, 512, L23

1259: \bibitem[Sanders 2003]{sanders03}Sanders, R.H. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 901

1260: \bibitem[Sanders 2007]{rhs07} Sanders, R.H. 2007, MNRAS, 380, 331

1261: \bibitem[Sanders \& McGaugh 2002]{sm02}Sanders, R.H. \& McGaugh, S.S. 2002, ARA\&A, 40, 263

1262: \bibitem[Sanders \& Noordermeer 2007]{sn07}Sanders, R.H. \&  Noordermeer, E.

1263: 2007, MNRAS, 379, 702

1264: \bibitem [Zhang et al. 2005]{zheal05} Zhang, Y.-Y., B\"ohringer, H.,

1265:     Mellier, Y., Soucail, G., \& Forman, W. 2005, AA, 429, 85

1266: \bibitem[Zhao \& Famaey 2006]{zf06}Zhao, H. S. \& Famaey, B. 2006, ApJ, 638, L9

1267: \bibitem[Zlosnik Ferreira \&  Starkman 2007]{zlos07}Zlosnik, T.G., Ferreira, P.G.,  \&  Starkman,

1268: G.D. 2007, Phys. Rev. D 75, 044017

1269: \end{thebibliography}

1270: 

1271: \end{document}

1272: