1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \begin{document}
3:
4: \newcommand{\kms}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}}
5: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
6: \newcommand{\THmod}{Tuorla-Heidelberg}
7: \newcommand{\LCDM}{$\Lambda$CDM}
8: \newcommand{\ML}{\ensuremath{\Upsilon_{\star}}}
9: \newcommand{\MLmax}{\ensuremath{\Upsilon_{max}}}
10: \newcommand{\MLpop}{\ensuremath{\Upsilon_{pop}}}
11: \newcommand{\MLopt}{\ensuremath{\Upsilon_{acc}}}
12: \newcommand{\Om}{\ensuremath{\Omega_m}}
13: \newcommand{\Ob}{\ensuremath{\Omega_b}}
14: \newcommand{\OL}{\ensuremath{\Omega_{\Lambda}}}
15: \newcommand{\C}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{C}}}
16: \newcommand{\B}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{B}}}
17: \newcommand{\Q}{\ensuremath{{\cal Q}}}
18: \newcommand{\Pop}{\ensuremath{{\cal P}}}
19: \newcommand{\G}{\ensuremath{{\Gamma}}}
20: %\newcommand{\Gopt}{\ensuremath{{\Gamma_{\star}}}}
21: \newcommand{\Lsun}{\ensuremath{L_{\odot}}}
22: \newcommand{\rd}{\ensuremath{R_{d}}}
23: \newcommand{\Msun}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}_{\odot}}}
24: \newcommand{\mass}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}}}
25: \newcommand{\Mst}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}_{\star}}}
26: \newcommand{\Mg}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}_g}}
27: \newcommand{\Md}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}_d}}
28: \newcommand{\Mh}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}_h}}
29: \newcommand{\Sd}{\ensuremath{{\Sigma}_0}}
30: \newcommand{\Sg}{\ensuremath{{\Sigma}_g}}
31: \newcommand{\Sst}{\ensuremath{{\Sigma}_{\star}}}
32: \newcommand{\fst}{\ensuremath{f_{\star}}}
33: \newcommand{\Vst}{\ensuremath{V_{\star}}}
34: \newcommand{\vst}{\ensuremath{v_{\star}}}
35: \newcommand{\Vg}{\ensuremath{V_{g}}}
36: \newcommand{\vt}{\ensuremath{v_{t}}}
37: \newcommand{\Vc}{\ensuremath{V_{c}}}
38: \newcommand{\Vb}{\ensuremath{V_{b}}}
39: \newcommand{\Vh}{\ensuremath{V_h}}
40: \newcommand{\Vf}{\ensuremath{V_{f}}}
41: \newcommand{\VNFW}{\ensuremath{V_{200}}}
42: %\newcommand{\shape}{\ensuremath{\Gamma_{0.6}}}
43: \newcommand{\shape}{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{T}_{0.6}}}
44: \newcommand{\norm}{\ensuremath{\sigma_8}}
45: \newcommand{\gn}{\ensuremath{g_N}}
46: \newcommand{\anot}{\ensuremath{a_0}}
47: \newcommand{\csb}{\ensuremath{\mu_0}}
48: \newcommand{\magsq}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{mag.}\,\mathrm{arcsec}^{-2}}}
49: \newcommand{\surfdens}{\ensuremath{{\cal M}_{\odot}\,\mathrm{pc}^{-2}}}
50: \newcommand{\MDAC}{MDAcc}
51: \newcommand{\HI}{H{\sc i}}
52:
53: %\shorttitile{Galactic Mass Models}
54: %\shortauthors{McGaugh}
55:
56: \title{Milky Way Mass Models and MOND}
57:
58: \author{Stacy S.~McGaugh}
59:
60: \affil{Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland}
61: \affil{College Park, MD 20742-2421}
62: \email{ssm@astro.umd.edu}
63:
64:
65: \begin{abstract}
66: Using the \THmod\ model for the mass distribution of the Milky Way,
67: I determine the rotation curve predicted by MOND. The result is in good
68: agreement with the observed terminal velocities interior to the solar radius
69: and with estimates of the Galaxy's rotation curve exterior thereto.
70: There are no fit parameters: given the mass distribution, MOND provides
71: a good match to the rotation curve. The \THmod\ model
72: does allow for a variety of exponential scale lengths; MOND
73: prefers short scale lengths in the range $2.0 \lesssim \rd \lesssim 2.5$ kpc.
74: The favored value of \rd\ depends somewhat on the choice of interpolation
75: function. There is some preference for the `simple' interpolation function
76: as found by Famaey \& Binney. I introduce an interpolation
77: function that shares the advantages of the simple function on galaxy scales
78: while having a much smaller impact in the solar system. I also solve the
79: inverse problem, inferring the surface mass density distribution of the Milky Way
80: from the terminal velocities.
81: %These imply $\textrm{A} = 15.9\;\kms\,\textrm{kpc}^{-1}$ and
82: %$\textrm{B} = -13.0\;\kms\,\textrm{kpc}^{-1}$
83: %in the fourth quadrant.
84: The result is a Galaxy
85: with `bumps and wiggles' in both its luminosity profile and rotation curve
86: that are reminiscent of those frequently observed in external galaxies.
87: \end{abstract}
88:
89: \keywords{dark matter --- galaxies: kinematics and dynamics ---
90: galaxies: spiral}
91:
92: {~}
93:
94: \clearpage
95:
96: \section{Introduction}
97:
98: A persistently viable alternative to dark matter is the Modified Newtonian
99: Dynamics (MOND) of Milgrom (1983abc). MOND is known to perform well
100: in fitting the rotation curves of individual galaxies
101: (e.g., Begeman, Broeils, \& Sanders 1991; Sanders 1996;
102: de Blok \& McGaugh 1998; Sanders \& Verheijen 1998;
103: Sanders \& McGaugh 2002; Sanders \& Noordermeer 2007),
104: possessing a predictive
105: power well beyond that available from mass models with a mix of luminous
106: and dark mass. On the other hand, MOND fares less well on the larger scales
107: of clusters of galaxies (e.g., Sanders 2003; Pointecouteau \& Silk 2005;
108: Clowe \etal\ 2006; Angus, Famaey, \& Buote 2007),
109: seeming to require more mass than currently observed in known baryonic forms.
110: This is a genuine problem, but also a partial success as Milgrom (1983c) was
111: among the first to note the potential mass of the intracluster medium.
112: Clusters are not without their puzzles in the context of dark matter
113: (Hayashi \& White 2006; McCarthy, Bower, \& Balogh 2007;
114: Springel \& Farrar 2007; Milosavljevi{\'c} \etal\ 2007; Milgrom \& Sanders 2007;
115: Angus \& McGaugh 2008; Nusser 2008; Broadhurst \& Barkana 2008).
116: This is an oft-repeated theme;
117: systems that pose problems for MOND often make little sense in terms of
118: dark matter either. On the positive side,
119: MOND performs well in a greater variety of systems
120: than seems to be widely appreciated
121: (Bekenstein 2006; McGaugh 2006; Milgrom 2008). For example,
122: it correctly describes (Milgrom 2007; Gentile \etal\ 2007) the behavior
123: of tidal dwarfs (Bournaud \etal\ 2007) that pose an existential challenge
124: to cold dark matter. We should therefore be cautious of an
125: eagerness to dismiss the idea entirely on the basis of one type of object,
126: or the natural distrust of the unfamiliar, and
127: rather seek as many precision tests as possible.
128:
129: As a modified force law, MOND makes strong and testable predictions.
130: In the absence of invisible mass, the observed kinematics of an object in the
131: MOND regime of low acceleration should follow from its observed mass
132: distribution just as planetary motions follow from purely Newton dynamics
133: in the solar system. One galaxy that we are intimately familiar with is
134: our own Milky Way, for which a wealth of high quality data are available.
135:
136: Famaey \& Binney (2005) investigated MOND in the Milky Way in the
137: context of the Basel model (Bissantz \& Gerhard 2002;
138: Bissantz, Englmaier \& Gerhard 2003).
139: Since that time, the number and quality of observational constraints has
140: continued to improve. Moreover, the gas mass is not negligible in MOND,
141: being nearly 20\% of the total. Here I consider this in the context
142: of the Milky Way for the first time.
143:
144: The goal of this paper is to use one type of observation to predict another.
145: Given the mass distribution of the Milky Way, does MOND predict a plausible
146: rotation curve consistent with the available data? Inverting the question, can
147: the mass distribution be inferred from the kinematic data? The point is not to
148: find the best fit involving every possible kind of data (see Widrow, Pym,
149: \& Dubinski 2008 for
150: such an exercise in the conventional context). Rather, I seek to use one type of
151: data to \textit{predict} an entirely independent set of observations.
152:
153: The paper is organized as follows.
154: In section \S \ref{mus}, I describe MOND as applied here, considering a variety
155: of interpolation functions.
156: In \S \ref{MWmass} I describe the mass distribution of the Milky Way,
157: adopting the \THmod\ model (Flynn \etal\ 2006) for the stellar mass distribution,
158: and utilizing the tabulation of Olling \& Merrifield (1999) for the gas distribution.
159: In \S \ref{MWRC} I present the results of applying MOND to the adopted mass
160: model. In \S \ref{MW_emp} I invert the question, and infer the deviations from
161: a smooth exponential luminosity profile implied by the bumps and wiggles in the
162: terminal velocity curve. The conclusions are summarized in \S \ref{conc}.
163:
164: \section{MOND and the Interpolation Function \label{mus}}
165:
166: The basic idea of MOND (Milgrom 1983a) is that rather than invoking dark
167: matter to explain mass discrepancies in extragalactic systems, one modifies
168: the force law such that
169: \begin{equation}
170: \textbf{g}_N = \mu(x) \textbf{a}, \label{mondeqn}
171: \end{equation}
172: where \textbf{g}$_N$ is the acceleration calculated using Newtonian dynamics,
173: and $\textbf{a}$ is the actual resultant acceleration.
174: The modification occurs not at some length scale, but at the acceleration
175: scale \anot, with $x = a/\anot$ (here $a = |\textbf{a}|$).
176: The interpolation function $\mu(x)$ has the property $\mu \rightarrow 1$
177: in the limit of large accelerations $a \gg \anot$ so that Newtonian behavior
178: is recovered. In the limit of small accelerations the modification applies, with
179: $\mu \rightarrow x$ for $a \ll \anot$.
180:
181: The acceleration scale \anot\ is very small.
182: Begeman \etal\ (1991) found $\anot = 1.2 \times 10^{-10}\;
183: \textrm{m}\,\textrm{s}^{-2} =
184: 3700\;\textrm{km}^2\,\textrm{s}^{-2}\,\textrm{kpc}^{-1}$ from fits to high
185: quality rotation curves. More recently, Bottema \etal\ (2002) estimated
186: $\anot = 3000\;\textrm{km}^2\,\textrm{s}^{-2}\,\textrm{kpc}^{-1}$
187: and McGaugh (2004)
188: $\anot \approx 4000\;\textrm{km}^2\,\textrm{s}^{-2}\,\textrm{kpc}^{-1}$,
189: the latter utilizing population synthesis estimates of the stellar mass. Here I
190: adopt the intermediate Begeman \etal\ (1991) value and keep \anot\ fixed
191: while considering different possible interpolation functions. The reader should
192: bear in mind that in addition to the uncertainty in \anot\ reflected
193: in the variety of determinations, the best fit value is likely to depend somewhat
194: on the choice of interpolation function.
195:
196: As noted by Milgrom (1983a) and Felten (1984),
197: equation~\ref{mondeqn} does not conserve momentum.
198: This was addressed by Bekenstein \& Milgrom (1984), who
199: wrote the modified Poisson equation
200: \begin{equation}
201: \nabla\cdot\left[\mu\left(\frac{|\nabla\Phi|}{\anot}\right)\nabla\Phi\right] = 4 \pi G \rho.
202: \label{AQUAL}
203: \end{equation}
204: This form of modified gravity obeys the conservation laws.
205: Milgrom (1994, 1999) also provides a conservative albeit non-local formalism
206: for modified inertia rather than modified gravity.
207:
208: Application of equation~\ref{mondeqn} has been highly
209: successful in fitting rotation curves.
210: It is exact for circular orbits in the modified inertia theory.
211: For modified gravity as it applies in spiral galaxies,
212: equation~\ref{mondeqn} is an approximation to equation~\ref{AQUAL}
213: that is usually correct to $\sim 15\%$ (Brada \& Milgrom 1995).
214: For our considerations here this suffices; it is not necessary to invoke the
215: aquadratic Lagrangian theory of Bekenstein \& Milgrom (1984),
216: much less the generally covariant theories of Bekenstein (2004) or Sanders (2005).
217:
218: Indeed, for our purposes here, we merely need the empirically proven formula
219: connecting surface density and rotation velocity (McGaugh 2004). MOND is
220: formulated in terms of the actual acceleration, as appropriate for a dynamical
221: theory. However, in the Milky Way we have
222: a better handle on the surface densities that predict the Newtonian acceleration.
223: Therefore, it is convenient to make the substitution $\nu(y) = \mu^{-1}(x)$, where
224: $y = \gn/\anot$. While not appropriate as the basis for a theory, this is
225: functionally equivalent when using the empirical approximation of
226: equation~\ref{mondeqn}. Replacing $\mu(x)$ with $\nu^{-1}(y)$ has the
227: advantage that $\gn(R)$ can be directly computed
228: from $\Sigma(R)$ with purely Newtonian dynamics.
229: Assuming circular motion ($a = \Vc^2/R$), we then have
230: \begin{equation}
231: \Vc^2 = \nu(y) \Vb^2, \label{nunotmu}
232: \end{equation}
233: where \Vb\ is the Newtonian rotation velocity expected for the baryons.
234: The Newtonian velocity $\Vb$ and acceleration \gn\ are computed for
235: appropriate mass distributions (see \S \ref{MWmass}): no simplifying
236: assumption like a `spherical disk' is made. Moreover, the right hand side of
237: equation~\ref{nunotmu} depends only on surface density, making it possible
238: to predict the rotation curve without reference to it through
239: $x = \Vc^2/(\anot R)$.
240:
241: Rotation curve fitting has traditionally employed the interpolation function
242: \begin{equation}
243: \mu_2(x) = \frac{x}{\sqrt{1+x^2}} \label{stdfcn}
244: \end{equation}
245: (Milgrom 1983b; Sanders \& McGaugh 2002).
246: This form is not specified by any deeper theory, and other forms are possible.
247: From habitual use equation~\ref{stdfcn} has come to be called the `standard'
248: interpolation function.
249:
250: More recently, it has been suggested that the `simple' function
251: \begin{equation}
252: \mu_1(x) = \frac{x}{1+x} \label{simplefcn}
253: \end{equation}
254: may give a better description of some data (Famaey \& Binney 2005;
255: Zhao \& Famaey 2006; Sanders \& Norrdermeer 2007).
256: Both this and the standard function are part of the family
257: \begin{equation}
258: \mu_n(x) = x(1+x^n)^{-1/n}.
259: \end{equation}
260: If we make the transformation $\mu \rightarrow \nu^{-1}$, we find the
261: corresponding family
262: \begin{equation}
263: \nu_n(y) = \left(\onehalf+\onehalf \sqrt{1+4y^{-n}}\right)^{1/n}.
264: \end{equation}
265:
266: Milgrom \& Sanders (2007) have suggested other possible families.
267: One is
268: \begin{equation}
269: \tilde \nu_n(y) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-e^{-y}}} +n e^{-y},
270: \end{equation}
271: with another being
272: \begin{equation}
273: \bar \nu_n(y) = (1-e^{-y^n})^{-\frac{1}{2n}}
274: + (1- \frac{1}{2n}) e^{-y^n}.
275: \end{equation}
276: These forms may have some virtue in causing artifacts that appear
277: as rings of dark matter (Milgrom \& Sanders 2007) such as that described by
278: Jee \etal\ (2007). Note that $\nu(y)$ is effectively the same as the mass
279: discrepancy $D(y)$ defined by McGaugh (2004), but I make the distinction
280: that $D$ is an empirical quantity while $\nu$ is a construct of MOND.
281:
282: The simple function (equation~\ref{simplefcn}) appears to have some
283: important virtues in the transition from Newtonian to MOND regimes
284: (Famaey \& Binney 2005; Sanders \& Noordermeer 2007).
285: However, it may have difficulties with solar system tests
286: (Sereno \& Jetzer 2006; Wallin, Dixon, \& Page 2007; Iorio 2007).
287: This occurs because of a rather gradual approach to the Newtonian
288: regime. Interestingly, it is just right (Milgrom 2006; McCulloch 2007)
289: for explaining the Pioneer anomaly (Anderson \etal\ 1989).
290: Note that this implies a conflict in the data. The Pioneer anomaly
291: is quite accurately measured, but may not be a dynamical effect,
292: so it remains unclear which interpretation to prefer.
293:
294: It is possible to have an interpolation function that retains the virtues of the
295: simple function on galaxy scales ($\sim \anot$) while having no impact in
296: the inner solar system ($\sim 10^8 \anot$). One possible family is
297: \begin{equation}
298: \hat \nu_n(y) = (1-e^{-y^{n/2}})^{-1/n} \label{mynu}
299: \end{equation}
300: such that
301: \begin{mathletters}
302: \begin{eqnarray}
303: \hat \nu_1(y) = (1 - e^{-\sqrt{y}})^{-1} \label{munuone} \\
304: \hat \nu_2(y) = (1-e^{-y})^{-1/2}. \label{mynutwo}
305: \end{eqnarray}
306: \end{mathletters}
307: On galaxy scales, $\hat \nu_1(y)$ corresponds closely to the simple function
308: $\nu_1(y)$ and $\hat \nu_2(y)$ to the standard function $\nu_2(y)$
309: (Fig~\ref{nuy}). On solar system scales, the simple function predicts deviations
310: from purely Newtonian behavior of one part in $10^8$, while $\hat \nu_1(10^8)$
311: deviates by only one part in $e^{10^8}$. While this is certainly a virtue if we
312: wish to avoid even modest MOND effects in the solar system, one theoretically
313: unpleasant aspect of $\hat \nu$ is that its transformation to $\hat \mu$ is
314: transcendental.
315:
316: \placefigure{nuy}
317:
318: The interpolation functions given above are shown in Fig.~\ref{nuy}.
319: While the shapes of $\nu_n$ and $\hat \nu_n$ are similar for similar $n$,
320: $\tilde \nu_n$ and $\bar \nu_n$ are\footnote{There is some overlap between
321: families. For example, $\hat \nu_1 = \bar \nu_{1/2}$ but $\hat \nu_2 \ne
322: \bar \nu_{3/2}$.} rather different. In particular, they have
323: a rather linear region around $y \approx 1$. What effect this might have on
324: rotation curve fits has not yet been explored in detail, but it may be useful
325: in some historically difficult cases (Milgrom \& Sanders 2007). The chief effect of
326: increasing $n$ within a given family seems to be to increase the value of
327: the best fit mass-to-light ratio. This occurs because there is a more pronounced
328: MOND effect already at $y=1$ with $\nu_1$ than with $\nu_2$ (for example).
329: Thus less mass is required to attain the same velocity with lower $n$.
330:
331: I do not seek here to identify the optimal version of the many possible interpolation
332: functions. Rather, I will simply illustrate the effects of a few representative
333: examples. The results are grossly similar, varying only in details as
334: plausible interpolation functions differ only a little.
335:
336: \section{The Milky Way Mass Distribution \label{MWmass}}
337:
338: To describe the stellar mass distribution of the Milky Way, I adopt the results of the
339: recent \THmod\ study (Flynn \etal\ 2006). This provides a relation between the
340: bulge mass, disk mass, and scale length of the Milky Way (their Fig.~15)
341: that satisfies both the local surface density and the global luminosity. As the
342: assumed scale length of the disk increases, its central surface density decreases,
343: and the bulge mass increases to maintain the necessary central mass
344: (Table~\ref{MW_mods}).
345:
346: Following Flynn \etal\ (2006), I adopt a solar radius $R_0 = 8$ kpc.
347: For the circular velocity I take $\Theta_0 = 219\;\kms$ (Reid \etal\ 1999).
348: The latter is only for reference and does not enter into the models constructed here.
349: The choice of $R_0$ is relevant as it affects the total scale of the problem.
350: I explore a range of scale lengths \rd\ at fixed $R_0$.
351: %To a first approximation,
352: %these solutions will scale as $\rd/R_0$ for different choices of $R_0$.
353: %This will not be precisely true
354: The details will change for different choices of $R_0$ since MOND imposes
355: a specific physical scale, and the total mass will scale with $R_0$.
356: However, the differences over the plausible range of $R_0$ are not likely to
357: be great compared to the variation due to $\rd/R_0$.
358:
359: \placetable{MW_mods}
360:
361: The particular model adopted for the baryonic mass distribution of the Milky Way
362: certainly matters. For the appropriate choice of scale length, the \THmod\ model
363: is very similar to the Basel model (Bissantz \etal\ 2003)
364: employed by Famaey \& Binney (2005).
365: However, even small differences are perceptible in MOND. I employ the
366: \THmod\ model here because of its novelty and
367: to enable an exploration of the effects of the scale length.
368: The more important advance however is likely the inclusion of the gas distribution
369: (\S \ref{thegas}).
370:
371: \subsection{The Stellar Disk \label{thedisk}}
372:
373: The stellar disk is assumed to follow an exponential distribution
374: \begin{equation}
375: \Sst(R) = \Sd e^{-R/\rd}.
376: \end{equation}
377: The central surface density \Sd\ is computed from the disk mass of the
378: \THmod\ model for the appropriate choice of scale length (Table~\ref{MW_mods}).
379: The disk is assumed to have a finite thickness with an exponential vertical
380: distribution with $z_d = 300$ pc (Siegel \etal\ 2002).
381: The distinction between thick and thin disk is
382: relatively unimportant here as most of the mass is in the thin disk.
383: The choice of $z_d$ is relevant only to the detailed computation of \Vb;
384: plausible deviations are smaller than the variation in interpolation functions.
385:
386: I consider scale lengths in the range $2 \leq \rd \leq 4$ kpc.
387: At the lower limit of this range, the \THmod\ model has a purely exponential
388: surface density distribution. At the upper limit of this
389: range, the Milky Way disk starts to become rather low surface brightness.
390: The scale length suggested by COBE $L$-band data is 2.5 kpc
391: (Binney, Gerhard, \& Spergel 1997),
392: while more recently Gerhard (2002, 2006) has suggested a shorter $\rd = 2.1$ kpc.
393: In varying the scale length, it turns out that MOND prefers a rather short scale length
394: consistent with these estimates, the precise value depending somewhat on the
395: choice of interpolation function and the choice of comparison data.
396:
397: \subsection{The Bulge \label{thebulge}}
398:
399: The distribution of bulge mass follow the triaxial distribution determined
400: by Binney \etal\ (1997):
401: \begin{equation}
402: \rho_B(b) = \frac{\rho_{B,0}}{\eta \zeta b_m^3}
403: \frac{e^{-(b/b_m)^2}}{\left(1+b/b_0\right)^{1.8}}
404: %\rho_B(b) = \frac{\rho_{B,0}}{\eta \zeta b_m^3}
405: %\frac{e^{-\left(\frac{b}{b_m}\right)^2}}{\left(1+\frac{b}{b_0}\right)^{1.8}}
406: \label{bulgedist}
407: \end{equation}
408: where $b^2 = x^2+(y/\eta)^2+(z/\zeta)^2$. They base this profile
409: on fits to the COBE $L$-band data, finding
410: $b_m = 1.9$ kpc, $b_0 = 0.1$ kpc, $\eta = 0.5$ and $\zeta = 0.6$.
411:
412: In order to compute \gn\ for the bulge, I neglect the triaxiality and
413: use the sphere that is geometrically equivalent to equation~\ref{bulgedist}.
414: This gives the same run of mass with radius, substituting
415: $r/[(\eta \zeta)^{1/3}b_m]$ for $b/b_m$ and similarly for $b/b_0$. Then
416: \begin{equation}
417: g_{N,B} = \frac{V_B^2(R)}{R} = \frac{4 \pi G}{R^2}\int_0^R \rho_B(r) r^2 dr
418: \label{bulgevel}
419: \end{equation}
420: which I integrate numerically. The factor $\rho_{B,0}$ is scaled to
421: give the correct bulge mass for each choice of scale length
422: (Table~\ref{MW_mods}).
423:
424: The effects of deviations from this
425: particular bulge model are explored in \S \ref{bulgscal}. These details
426: are fairly unimportant here, as they only affect the inner 3 kpc where the
427: motions are non-circular owing to the triaxial distribution of the inner
428: bulge-bar component implied by equation~\ref{bulgedist}.
429: All that matters to the results at $R > 3$ kpc is the total mass enclosed therein.
430:
431: \subsection{The Gas Disk \label{thegas}}
432:
433: For the gas, I adopt the distribution given by Olling \& Merrifield
434: (2001 --- their Table D1). I include both the molecular and atomic gas components,
435: treating them as being in a negligibly thin disk. I do not include the ionized gas
436: component for consistency with the treatment of other galaxies. Moreover, this
437: is a very small fraction of the total with an estimated surface density
438: ($1.4\;\surfdens$) that is only available at the solar radius.
439:
440: Olling \& Merrifield (2001) give the surface densities scaled by $R_0$.
441: For consistency with the \THmod\ model I fix these numbers to $R_0 = 8$ kpc.
442: The surface densities of H$_2$ and \HI\ gas are corrected upwards by a factor
443: of 1.4 to account for the associated mass in helium and metals. For these
444: assumptions, the gas distribution integrates to a total mass
445: $\mass_{gas} = 1.18 \times 10^{10}\;\Msun$. This is slightly more gas mass
446: than inferred by Flynn \etal\ (2006) from different data, whose total sums
447: to just under $10^{10}\;\Msun$. This seems like an adequate level of agreement
448: considering the diversity of published opinions.
449:
450: The gas is usually neglected in mass models of the Milky Way
451: as it is a trace component compared to the stars and dark matter halo.
452: However, the gas is not negligible in MOND. The models considered here
453: have gas mass fractions in the range
454: $f_g = \mass_{gas}/\mass_{b} = 0.19 \pm 0.01$
455: (Table~\ref{MW_mods}). This is an important component of the
456: total gravitating mass in the absence of dark matter. Effects of the detailed
457: distribution of the gas are reflected in the total rotation curve.
458:
459: \section{The Milky Way Rotation Curve \label{MWRC}}
460:
461: Given the Milky Way mass distribution, MOND predicts the rotation curve.
462: Unlike the case with external galaxies, the mass-to-light ratio is not a fit parameter.
463: The \THmod\ model plus the gas distribution of Olling \& Merrifield (1999)
464: specify the mass. The only choices to be made are the scale length and the
465: interpolation function.
466:
467: \placefigure{MW_panelA,MW_panelB,MW_panelC}
468:
469: Figs.~\ref{MW_panelA}, \ref{MW_panelB}, and \ref{MW_panelC}
470: show the results for increasing choices of scale length.
471: In each case, four interpolation functions
472: are illustrated: $\hat \nu_1$ and $\hat \nu_2$ (these are practically
473: indistinguishable from the simple and standard interpolation functions) and
474: for comparison the functions $\tilde \nu_1$ and $\bar \nu_1$ newly
475: suggested by Milgrom \& Sanders (2007).
476: MOND produces a realistic rotation curve given a mass distribution,
477: especially for the shorter scale lengths preferred by the COBE data.
478:
479: As we increase the scale length to $\rd > 3$ kpc,
480: MOND produces less plausible looking rotation curves.
481: In these cases, the bulge causes a prominent peak in the inner rotation curve.
482: Such a morphology is sometimes seen in early type spirals
483: (Noordermeer \etal\ 2007), but the sharp peak in Fig.~\ref{MW_panelC}
484: is rather unusual. This aspect is sensitive to
485: the bulge model, and more plausible results are possible (\S~\ref{bulgscal}).
486:
487: Comparison with the observed terminal velocities
488: (Kerr \etal\ 1986; Malhorta 1995) also favors short scale lengths.
489: The agreement is particularly good for
490: $\hat \nu_1$ when $\rd = 2.3$ kpc. The other interpolation functions are
491: hard to distinguish from one another, and seem to prefer slightly longer
492: scale lengths $\rd \approx 2.5$ kpc. This result is sensitive to small changes
493: (of order 4\%) in the terminal velocity data (\S \ref{MW_emp}), so stronger
494: statements seem unwarranted.
495:
496: The Galactic constants can be computed for each model.
497: Table~\ref{Oort_tab} gives the rotation velocity at the solar circle
498: $\Theta_0$ and the Oort Constants A and B:
499: \begin{mathletters}
500: \begin{eqnarray}
501: \textrm{A} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\Theta_0}{R_0} -
502: \frac{d\Vc}{dR}{\Big |}_{R_0}\right) \\
503: \textrm{B} = -\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\Theta_0}{R_0} +
504: \frac{d\Vc}{dR}{\Big |}_{R_0}\right).
505: \end{eqnarray}
506: \end{mathletters}
507: The latter depend on the derivative of the rotation curve, which in these models
508: depends somewhat on the extent over which the derivative is measured.
509: That is, there are bumps and wiggles in the rotation curve as a result of the
510: non-smooth gas distribution (Olling \& Merrifield 2001). This causes the
511: derivative to vary in a non-trivial fashion. For specificity, I compute A and B
512: over $\pm 0.5$ kpc around $R_0 = 8$ kpc. One may wonder if this effect
513: has played a role in the various values of the Oort constants that have been
514: derived historically.
515:
516: \placetable{Oort_tab}
517:
518: The Galactic constants are shown graphically in Fig.~\ref{Oort_fig}.
519: The measurement of Feast \& Whitelock (1997) is most consistent with
520: $\hat \nu_1$ for $\rd = 2.1$ kpc. Other interpolation functions and
521: scale lengths are possible, depending on how literally we take the
522: error bars. The function $\hat \nu_1$ seems to perform best, with reasonable
523: values of $\Theta_0$, A, and B for $\rd \le 2.5$ kpc. This interpolation function
524: is very similar to the simple function found by Famaey \& Binney (2005)
525: to work best in combination with the Basel model.
526:
527: The other interpolation functions perform less well, though again one must
528: be cautious as always about the interpretation of astronomical uncertainties.
529: For example, $\tilde \nu_1$ gives reasonable $\Theta_0$ up to $\rd = 3$ kpc,
530: but tends to give A $< |$B$|$ in contradiction to most measurements.
531: Similarly, $\bar \nu_1$ gives reasonable B values,
532: but tends to run low in the other Galactic constants except for the smallest scale
533: lengths. The standard function traditionally used in fitting external galaxies
534: also gives good B values for all scale lengths, but rather low $\Theta_0$,
535: albeit within the realm of possibility (Olling \& Merrifield 1998).
536:
537: \placefigure{Oort_fig}
538:
539: For all interpolation functions, agreement with both the Galactic constants and
540: the terminal velocities steadily deteriorates with increasing scale length.
541: It therefore seems clear that MOND prefers a Milky Way with a short scale
542: length, $\rd \lesssim 2.5$ kpc. There also seems to be a preference
543: for something closer to the simple interpolation function, as found by
544: Famaey \& Binney (2005).
545: It seems quite remarkable that given the mass distribution specified by
546: the \THmod\ model for the stars and Olling \& Merrifield (2001) for the
547: gas, MOND produces a
548: plausible rotation curve that is consistent with independent terminal
549: velocity data and the observed Galactic constants with no fitting whatsoever.
550:
551: \subsection{Effects of the Bulge Scale Length \label{bulgscal}}
552:
553: The model constructed here employs the spherical radial profile that is
554: geometrically equivalent to the observed $L$-band light distribution
555: of the central bulge-bar component. This results in a rotation curve for this
556: component that is very similar to that of Englmaier \& Gerhard (1999),
557: as it should be since it is based on the same data. However, it
558: rises more steeply than that of Bissantz \etal\ (2003) owing to the
559: different treatment of spiral arms there. The latter appears consistent with
560: the same mass profile with a larger scale length.
561:
562: Fig.~\ref{MW_bulge_var} shows the effect of varying the bulge scale length.
563: Two cases are illustrated: that described in \S~\ref{thebulge}, and one with
564: the same distribution but a longer scale length. The former uses the geometric
565: scaling $(\eta\zeta)^{1/3}$ while the latter uses no scaling.
566: In effect, $r$ is directly substituted for $b$ in equation~\ref{bulgedist}
567: with no geometric correction to $b_m$ and $b_0$.
568: This latter case gives a softer bulge more consistent with Bissantz \etal\ (2003).
569:
570: \placefigure{MW_bulge_var}
571:
572: The shape of the inner rotation curve is affected by the choice of scale length,
573: with a much steeper rate of rise for shorter length scales. The longer scale
574: length bulge model results in less of a peak, and produces morphologically
575: reasonable rotation curves for disks of all scale lengths. Even the $\rd = 4$ kpc
576: case appears plausible, though the maximum rotation velocity barely exceeds
577: $200\;\kms$.
578:
579: The details of the bulge model make no difference at $R > 3$ kpc.
580: Since the orbits within this radius are apparently non-circular
581: thanks to the triaxiality of the central component, we make no attempt to fit
582: this region. To do so would require detailed MONDian simulations that are
583: well beyond the scope of this paper. What matters here is
584: basically just the mass enclosed within 3 kpc, which is constrained by
585: a great deal of data (Gerhard 2006).
586:
587: \subsection{The Outer Rotation Curve}
588:
589: The rotation curve of the Galaxy beyond the solar circle is rather more
590: difficult to constrain than that within it
591: (e.g., Binney \& Dehnen 1997; Frinchaboy 2006).
592: MOND predicts the rotation curve for the given mass distribution quite
593: far out, to where the external field from other galaxies starts to become important
594: (Famaey, Bruneton \& Zhao 2007; Wu \etal\ 2008).
595: Recently, Xue \etal\ (2008) estimated the rotation curve of the Milky Way out to
596: 55 kpc from blue horizontal branch stars found in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.
597: Fig.~\ref{Outer_RC} shows the extrapolation out to these radii.
598:
599: \placefigure{Outer_RC}
600:
601: MOND was constructed to give asymptotically flat rotation curves.
602: However, the detailed shape of the rotation curve depends on the details
603: of the mass distribution. The rotation curve may rise or fall towards the
604: asymptotic value, and may not become flat until quite far out. For our Galaxy,
605: the rotation speed predicted by MOND declines gradually from the solar
606: value to $\sim 185\;\kms$ at $\sim 50$ kpc, asymptoting to $\sim 180\;\kms$.
607: Such a gradually declining rotation curve helps to reconcile the apparent
608: (albeit minor) discrepancy between the Milky Way and the Tully-Fisher relation
609: (Flynn \etal\ 2006; Hammer \etal\ 2007): $\Theta_0$ is a bit larger than $V_f$.
610: More importantly, this prediction appears to be consistent with the SDSS data.
611:
612: Xue \etal\ (2008) employ \LCDM\ simulations to aid in the interpretation of the
613: SDSS data. This is obviously inappropriate for a MONDian analysis. Indeed,
614: one wonders if it is appropriate at all given the difficulties \LCDM\ models
615: persistently face on galaxy scales (e.g., Kuzio de Naray \etal\ 2006;
616: McGaugh \etal\ 2007). The Milky Way itself is problematic
617: in this regard (Binney \& Evans 2001).
618: The baryon distributions of neither the \THmod\ model nor the Basel model
619: tolerate the expected cusp in the dark matter halo. As with other bright spirals,
620: the baryons account for too much of the rotation curve budget at small radii.
621: Hopefully the result of Xue \etal\ (2008) is dominated by the data and
622: would not change greatly with a different analysis.
623:
624: \section{The Inverse Problem: Surface Densities from Velocities \label{MW_emp}}
625:
626: The \THmod\ model gives very useful constraints on the mass distribution of the
627: Milky Way, but is still couched in terms of a smooth exponential disk.
628: Real galaxies deviate somewhat from pure exponentials, and these `bumps
629: and wiggles' in the surface brightness are reflected in the rotation curve
630: (Renzo's rule: Sancisi 2004; McGaugh 2004). One wonders if this might also
631: be the case for the Milky Way.
632:
633: Recently, very high quality estimates of the terminal velocities in the fourth
634: quadrant have become available (Luna \etal\ 2006; McClure-Griffiths \&
635: Dickey 2007). These suggest the possibility of reversing the exercise above,
636: and inferring the surface density distribution of the Milky Way from these data.
637: Note that equation~\ref{nunotmu} can be inverted to obtain the baryonic
638: rotation curve from the observed terminal velocity curve: $\Vb = \Vc/\sqrt{\nu}$.
639: Then the inversion to surface density becomes a purely Newtonian problem.
640: In principle, this can be accomplished by employing equation 2-174 of
641: Binney \& Tremaine (1987):
642: \begin{equation}
643: \Sigma(R) = \frac{1}{\pi^2 G}\left[\frac{1}{R}\int_0^R \frac{d\Vb^2}{dR}
644: K\left(\frac{u}{R}\right)du + \int_R^{\infty} \frac{d\Vb^2}{dR}
645: K\left(\frac{R}{u}\right)\frac{du}{u}\right].
646: \label{invert}
647: \end{equation}
648: Note that this procedure should work even in the context of dark matter.
649: If MOND is not correct as a theory, the interpolation function still provides
650: an empirical link between \Vb\ and \Vc\ (McGaugh 2004).
651: In practice, however, application of equation~\ref{invert} is fraught with peril.
652: The elliptic integral $K$ peaks very sharply as $u \rightarrow R$. Moreover,
653: one must know the derivative of the square of the rotation curve very well.
654: Even though the new data are very good, there are many abrupt changes
655: in the derivative. Moreover, the data extend only over a finite
656: range of radii, while the integral must be completed everywhere.
657:
658: A more practical approach is one of iterative trial and error, computing \gn\
659: from a trial mass distribution in the usual way, then tweaking it to bring it
660: closer to the data.
661: The new terminal velocities, which are consistent in shape with the older data,
662: are $\sim 8\;\kms$ higher in amplitude. This appears largely to result from the
663: method by which the maximum line-of-sight velocity is estimated (see
664: extensive discussion in McClure-Griffiths \& Dickey 2007).
665: While this hardly seems like a large offset ($\sim 4\%$),
666: it is quite noticeable in MOND. It implies higher surface densities, albeit
667: well within the uncertainties of the \THmod\ model.
668: Given the current inter-arm location of the sun, it might even be desirable
669: to have the azimuthally averaged surface density at the solar radius be somewhat
670: higher than the local column.
671:
672: The case of $\hat \nu_1$ with $\rd = 2$ kpc is the smooth case that comes
673: closest to matching the data of Luna \etal\ (2006) and McClure-Griffiths \&
674: Dickey (2007). Starting from this initial guess, I perturb the surface density
675: profile by manually adjusting the surface densities in the range necessary to
676: affect the terminal velocity data. To be specific, I match the data of Luna \etal\
677: (2006) in the range $3 \leq R \leq 7.8$ kpc. Velocities inside 3 kpc are
678: not fit since the motions there are thought to be non-circular,
679: %\footnote{Fitting
680: %the non-circular motions interior to $R= 3$ kpc requires detailed hydrodynamical
681: %modeling that remains challenging in conventional analyses, let alone
682: %in the context of MOND.},
683: and the details of
684: the choice of bulge model begin to matter (\S \ref{bulgscal}). For simplicity
685: I assume that the inner distribution is purely exponential, but this does not
686: matter so long as the enclosed mass remains the same. One could just as
687: well imagine a Galaxy with an inner bulge plus Freeman Type II
688: profile that sums to the same mass.
689:
690: The procedure is to adjust the surface density profile manually, estimating
691: the amount to adjust by the desired $\Delta \Vc^2 R$.
692: I then use the routine ROTMOD in GIPSY (van der Hulst \etal\ 1992)
693: to compute \Vb\ for the perturbed surface density distribution.
694: I compare $\Vc = \hat \nu_1^{1/2}(y) \Vb$
695: to the data, and repeat the procedure. Though tedious, this procedure
696: can be made to converge with sufficient patience.
697: That is, it is possible
698: to obtain a model that matches the detailed shape of the terminal velocity data.
699:
700: \placefigure{MW_empirical}
701:
702: The result of this procedure is presented in Fig.~\ref{MW_empirical}.
703: Note that in order to affect the velocity at 3 kpc, it is necessary to start adjusting
704: the surface density somewhere inside of that. The inferred stellar surface
705: densities and corresponding velocities are given in Table~\ref{MWSD_emp}.
706: Outside of this range, the stellar density remains that of a purely
707: exponential disk. The gas is assumed to follow the distribution of
708: Olling \& Merrifield (2001); only the stellar disk has been adjusted.
709: The total mass is 2\% higher than the initial pure exponential disk:
710: $\mass_{disk} = 5.48 \times 10^{10}\;\Msun$.
711:
712: \placetable{MW_empirical}
713:
714: We should be careful not to over-interpret the result. I have only fit one choice of
715: interpolation function ($\hat \nu_1$); other choices would give somewhat different
716: results. Moreover, the assumption of circular motion is implicit; streaming motions
717: along the spiral arms are likely to be present at some level.
718: Indeed, Luna \etal\ (2006) give $\Vc(R=7.8\;\textrm{kpc}) = 233.6\;\kms$.
719: This is difficult to reconcile with $\Theta_0(R_0=8.0\;\textrm{kpc}) = 219\;\kms$
720: (Reid \etal\ 1999) with purely circular motion in any type of model.
721: Variations of this sort are at least conceivable in MOND
722: (Fig.~\ref{MW_empirical}), but probably reflect a real difference between the
723: first and fourth quadrants. Hence I have made no attempt to force a fit to
724: the solar value.
725:
726: The Oort constants of this model are fairly reasonable:
727: $\textrm{A} = 15.9\;\kms\,\textrm{kpc}^{-1}$ and
728: $\textrm{B} = -13.0\;\kms\,\textrm{kpc}^{-1}$. The value of A may seem
729: a bit high, but note that since the rotation velocity is inferred to be higher than
730: the solar value, A$-$B must also be higher. This is in the data.
731: The model fits the detailed terminal velocity curve as far as it is
732: reported (up to $R = 7.8$ kpc), so these are in effect the measured values of the
733: Oort constants in the fourth quadrant. There is only a modest model dependent
734: extrapolation to the solar radius.
735: Barring systematic errors in the data or sharp features in the
736: rotation curve near the solar radius, the uncertainty in these
737: estimates is $< 1\;\kms\,\textrm{kpc}^{-1}$.
738:
739: Indeed, it is instructive that this exercise can be successfully done at all.
740: The inferred surface density has the sorts of bumps and wiggles commonly
741: observed in the azimuthally averaged surface brightness profiles of spiral galaxies.
742: These correspond to the bumps and wiggles in the rotation curve, as they must
743: in MOND, and as they are observed to do in general (Renzo's rule).
744: This correspondence follows
745: in the dark matter picture only if disks are dynamically important. This is hard
746: to arrange with the cuspy halos obtained in CDM simulations (e.g.,
747: Navarro, Frenk, \& White 1997) as these place too much dark mass at
748: small radii. Low surface
749: brightness disks can not have dynamically significant mass in the dark matter
750: picture (de Blok \& McGaugh 1997), yet still obey the correspondence of bumps
751: and wiggles encapsulated by Renzo's rule (e.g., Broeils 1992). This occurs
752: naturally in MOND, the \textit{a priori} predictions of which (Milgrom 1983b) are
753: realized in LSB galaxies (Milgrom \& Braun 1988; McGaugh \& de Blok 1998).
754:
755: The specific pattern of bumps and wiggles seen in Fig.~\ref{MW_empirical}
756: is in principle testable by star count analyses. In particular, it is tempting to
757: associate the dip in surface density at $\sim 5$ kpc and the subsequent shelf
758: with a ring or spiral arms, perhaps emanating from the end of the long
759: ($\sim 4.5$ kpc) bar (Cabrera-Lavers \etal\ 2007) ---
760: a morphology frequently seen in other
761: galaxies and naturally reproduced in MOND simulations (Tiret \& Combes 2007).
762: Again however, the details of star counts will depend on the choice of interpolation
763: function and the level of non-circular motions. Indeed, even for a given
764: interpolation function and purely circular motion, the result at this level of
765: detail depends on whether we use the modified gravity of Bekenstein \& Milgrom
766: (1984; equation~\ref{AQUAL}) or modified inertia (equaion~\ref{mondeqn}).
767: I have implicitly assumed the latter here.
768:
769: Another intriguing thing to note is that a fit to the surface densities in
770: Table~\ref{MWSD_emp} gives $\rd = 2.4$ kpc even though the
771: base model has $\rd = 2.0$ kpc. This type of variation in \rd\ with the fitted
772: radial range is commonly found in external galaxies, and may go some way
773: to explaining the variation in reported scale lengths for the Milky Way
774: (Sackett 1997). Clearly MOND prefers a compact Milky Way, consistent
775: with the COBE data (Binney \etal\ 1997; Drimmel \& Spergel 2001) and the
776: rather high observed microlensing optical depth (Popowski \etal\ 2005)
777: that requires that baryonic mass dominate within the solar circle
778: (Binney \& Evans 2001; Bissantz, Debattista, \& Gerhard 2004).
779:
780: A related test of MOND in the Milky Way is provided by the vertical support
781: of the stellar and gas disks. In the outskirts of the galaxy, the baryonic components
782: should flare substantially as the effective mass scale height comes to be dominated
783: by the quasi-spherical dark matter halo. In contrast, the potential remains disk-like
784: close to the plane in MOND. The net effect is that MONDian disks will be
785: somewhat thinner, all other things being equal.
786:
787: Recently, S{\'a}nchez-Salcedo, Saha, \& Narayan (2008) have analyzed the thickness
788: of the gas layer of the Milky Way in the context of MOND. They find that
789: MONDian self-gravity of the disk provides a plausible explanation of the
790: thickness and flaring of the gas layer. Milgrom (2008) points out that the
791: form of the interpolation function as well as the mass model matters to the
792: details of the support of the gas layer. It also seems possible that
793: magnetic field support may be non-negligible, so a perfect fit might be
794: difficult to obtain. In comparison, it is necessary to invoke a massive
795: ($> 10^{11}\;\Msun$) ring-like dark matter
796: component in addition to the traditional quasi-spherical halo in order to
797: explain the gas thickness in conventional terms (Kalberla \etal\ 2007).
798:
799: For stars, MOND will support a higher vertical velocity dispersion at a
800: given disk thickness. This effect in the Milky Way is rather subtle
801: until large radii (Nipoti \etal\ 2007), but might conceivably be detectable
802: with GAIA. The large velocity dispersions of planetary nebulae at large
803: radii in face-on spirals might be an indication of such an effect
804: (Herrmann \& Ciardullo 2005).
805:
806: \section{Conclusions \label{conc}}
807:
808: Treating the Milky Way as we would an external galaxy, it is possible to
809: obtain the rotation curve from the surface density with MOND.
810: There is no freedom to adjust the mass-to-light ratio as in external galaxies.
811: The result is satisfactory provided the scale length of the Milky Way is
812: relatively short (2 --- 2.5 kpc), as implied by the COBE data (Binney \etal\ 1997;
813: Gerhard 2002, 2006). It is also possible to invert the procedure and derive a
814: plausible detailed surface density distribution from the observed terminal
815: velocity curve.
816:
817: The major conclusions of this work are as follows.
818: \begin{itemize}
819: \item Given the observed stellar and gas mass distribution of the Milky Way,
820: MOND naturally produces a plausible rotation curve that is consistent with
821: the relevant dynamical data. This follows with no fitting.
822:
823: \item MOND prefers Milky Way models with relatively short
824: ($2.0 \lesssim \rd \lesssim 2.5$ kpc) scale lengths. In this range, rotation
825: curves that look familiar from the study of external galaxies are produced.
826: As the scale length is increased beyond this range,
827: the morphology of the resulting rotation curve becomes less realistic,
828: and the match to kinematic data becomes worse.
829:
830: \item The Milky Way data seem to prefer an interpolation function close to
831: the simple form, in agreement with the findings of Famaey \& Binney (2005).
832: The precise form that is preferred depends on the details of the adopted
833: Milky Way model, so it is unclear how definitive a statement can be made.
834:
835: \item An interpolation function that shares the virtues of
836: the simple function on galaxy scales without having as large an impact on
837: solar system dynamics is $\hat \nu_1^{-1}(y) = 1 - e^{-\sqrt{y}}$. Other forms
838: are possible. Empirical calibration of this function is desirable, even in
839: the context of dark matter, since it encapsulates the coupling between mass
840: and light.
841:
842: \item It is possible to recover the detailed surface mass density of the Milky Way
843: from the observed terminal velocities. The result is a Galaxy
844: with bumps and wiggles in both its luminosity profile and rotation curve
845: that are reminiscent of those frequently observed in external galaxies.
846:
847: \item A prominent feature among the bumps and wiggles is a shelf around
848: $\sim 5.5$ kpc. This might correspond to a ring or spiral arms, perhaps
849: extending from the ends of the long bar. Fitting the profile including the
850: bumps and wiggles gives $\rd = 2.4$ kpc even though the mass scale length
851: is 2 kpc.
852:
853: \item The Oort constants in the fourth quadrant are estimated to be
854: $\textrm{A} = 15.9\;\kms\,\textrm{kpc}^{-1}$ and
855: $\textrm{B} = -13.0\;\kms\,\textrm{kpc}^{-1}$.
856:
857: \end{itemize}
858: It is hard to imagine that all this could follow from a formula devoid of
859: physical meaning.
860:
861: \acknowledgements
862: The author is grateful for conversations with Moti Milgrom, Garry Angus, and
863: Benoit Famaey, and for constructive input from the referee.
864: The work of SSM is supported in part by NSF grant AST 0505956.
865:
866: \clearpage
867:
868: \begin{references}
869: \reference{} Anderson, J.D., Laing, P.A., Lau, E.L., Liu, A.S, Nieto, M.M.,
870: Turyshev, S.G. 1989, \prl, 81, 2858
871: \reference{} Angus, G.W., Famaey, B., \& Buote, D.A.\ 2007, arXiv:0709.0108
872: \reference{} Angus, G.W., \& McGaugh, S.S.\ 2008, \mnras, 383, 417
873: \reference{} Angus, G.W., Shan, H.Y., Zhao, H.S., \& Famaey, B.
874: 2007, \apjl, 654, L13
875: \reference{} Bekenstein, J.D. 2004, \prd, 70, 083509 %TeVeS
876: \reference{} Bekenstein, J.D. 2006, Contemporary Physics, 47, 387
877: \reference{} Bekenstein, J.D., \& Milgrom, M. 1984, \apj, 286, 7
878: \reference{} Begeman, K. G., Broeils, A. H., \& Sanders, R. H.
879: 1991, \mnras, 249, 523
880: %\reference{} Bell, E.~F., McIntosh, D.~H., Katz, N., \& Weinberg, M.~D.
881: % 2003, \apjs, 149, 289
882: \reference{} Binney, J., \& Dehnen, W. 1997, \mnras, 287, L5
883: \reference{} Binney, J., \& Evans, N.W. 2001, \mnras, 327, L27
884: \reference{} Binney, J., Gerhard, O., \& Spergel, D. 1997, \mnras, 288, 365
885: \reference{} Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S. 1987, Princeton, NJ,
886: Princeton University Press
887: \reference{} Bissantz, N., Debattista, V.P., \& Gerhard, O.\ 2004, \apjl, 601, L155
888: \reference{} Bissantz N., Englmaier P., \& Gerhard O. , 2003, \mnras, 340, 949
889: \reference{} Bissantz N., \& Gerhard O. , 2002, \mnras, 330, 591
890: \reference{} Bottema, R., Pesta{\~n}a, J.L.G., Rothberg, B., \&
891: Sanders, R.H.\ 2002, \aap, 393, 453
892: \reference{} Bournaud, F., \etal\ 2007, Science, 316, 1166
893: \reference{} Brada, R., \& Milgrom, M. 1995, \mnras, 276, 453
894: \reference{} Broadhurst, T., \& Barkana, R. 2008, arXiv:0801.1875
895: \reference{} Broeils, A.H. 1992, \aap, 256, 19
896: %\reference{} Bureau, M., Aronica, G., Athanassoula, E., Dettmar, R.-J., Bosma, A.,
897: % \& Freeman, K.C. 2006, \mnras, 370, 753
898: \reference{} Cabrera-Lavers, A., Hammersley, P.L., Gonz{\'a}lez-Fern{\'a}ndez,
899: C., L{\'o}pez-Corredoira, M., Garz{\'o}n, F., \& Mahoney, T.J.
900: 2007, \aap, 465, 825
901: %\reference{} Cardone, V.F., \& Sereno, M. 2005, \aap, 438, 545
902: %\reference{} Courteau, S. \& Rix, H.-W. 1999, \apj, 513, 561
903: \reference{} de Blok, W.J.G., \& McGaugh, S.S. 1997, \mnras, 290, 533
904: \reference{} de Blok, W.J.G., \& McGaugh, S.S. 1998, \apj, 508, 132
905: \reference{} Englmaier, P., \& Gerhard, O. 1999, \mnras, 304, 512
906: \reference{} Famaey, B., \& Binney, J. 2005, \mnras, 363, 603
907: \reference{} Famaey, B., Bruneton, J.-P., \& Zhao, H.\ 2007, \mnras, 377, L79
908: \reference{} Feast, M., \& Whitelock, P. 1997, \mnras, 291, 683
909: \reference{} Felten, J.E. 1984, \apj, 286, 3
910: \reference{} Flynn, C., Holmberg, J., Portinari, L., Fuchs, B., \& Jahrei{\ss},
911: H. 2006, \mnras, 372, 1149 %(\THmod)
912: \reference{} Frinchaboy, P.M.I. 2006, Ph.D.~Thesis, University of Virginia
913: \reference{} Gentile, G., Famaey, B., Combes, F., Kroupa, P., Zhao,
914: H.S., \& Tiret, O.\ 2007, \aap, 472, L25
915: \reference{} Gerhard, O. 2002, Space Science Reviews, 100, 129
916: \reference{} Gerhard, O. 2006, EAS Publications Series, 20, 89
917: \reference{} Hammer, F., Puech, M., Chemin, L., Flores, H., \&
918: Lehnert, M.D. 2007, \apj, 662, 322
919: \reference{} Hayashi, E., \& White, S.D.M. 2006, \mnras, 370, L38
920: \reference{} Herrmann, K.A., \& Ciardullo, R. 2005, Planetary
921: Nebulae as Astronomical Tools, 804, 341
922: \reference{} Iorio, L. 2007, arXiv:0711.2791
923: \reference{} Jee, M.J., \etal\ 2007, \apj, 661, 728
924: \reference{} Kalberla, P.M.W., Dedes, L., Kerp, J., \& Haud, U. 2007, \aap, 469, 511
925: %\reference{} Kassin, S.~A., de Jong, R.~S., \& Weiner, B.~J.\
926: % 2006, \apj, 643, 804
927: \reference{} Kerr, F.J., Bowers, P.F., Jackson, P.D., \& Kerr, M. 1986, \aaps, 66, 373
928: %\reference{} Klypin, A., Zhao, H., \& Somerville, R.S. 2002, \apj, 573, 597
929: %\reference{} Kregel, M., van der Kruit, P.~C., \& Freeman,
930: % K.~C.\ 2005, \mnras, 358, 503
931: \reference{} Kuzio de Naray, R., McGaugh, S.S., de Blok, W.J.G. \&
932: Bosma, A. 2006, \apjs, 165, 461
933: \reference{} Luna, A., Bronfman, L., Carrasco, L., \& May, J. 2006, \apj, 641, 938
934: \reference{} Malhotra, S. 1995, \apj, 448, 138
935: \reference{} McCarthy, I.G., Bower, R.G., \& Balogh, M.L. 2007, \mnras, 377, 1457
936: \reference{} McClure-Griffiths, N.M., \& Dickey, J.M. 2007, \apj, 671, 427
937: \reference{} McCulloch, M.E. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 338
938: \reference{} McGaugh, S.S. 2004, \apj, 609, 652
939: \reference{} McGaugh, S.S. 2005, \apj, 632, 859
940: \reference{} McGaugh, S.S. 2006, astro-ph/0606351
941: %\reference{} McGaugh, S.S., Barker, M.K., \& de Blok, W.J.G.,
942: % 2003, \apj, 584, 566
943: %\reference{} McGaugh, S.S., \& de Blok, W.J.G. 1998, \apj, 499, 41
944: \reference{} McGaugh, S.S., \& de Blok, W.J.G. 1998, \apj, 499, 66
945: \reference{} McGaugh, S.S., de Blok, W.J.G., Schombert, J.S.,
946: Kuzio de Naray, R., \& Kim, J.H. 2007, \apj, 659, 149
947: \reference{} Milgrom, M. 1983a, \apj, 270, 365
948: \reference{} Milgrom, M. 1983b, \apj, 270, 371
949: \reference{} Milgrom, M. 1983c, \apj, 270, 384
950: \reference{} Milgrom, M. 1994, Ann. Phys. 229, 384
951: \reference{} Milgrom, M. 1999, Physics Letters A, 253, 273
952: \reference{} Milgrom, M. 2006, EAS Publications Series, 20, 217
953: \reference{} Milgrom, M.\ 2007, \apjl, 667, L45
954: \reference{} Milgrom, M. 2008, arXiv:0801.3133
955: \reference{} Milgrom, M. \& Braun, E. 1988, ApJ, 334, 130
956: \reference{} Milgrom, M., \& Sanders, R.H. 2007, arXiv:0709.2561
957: \reference{} Milosavljevi{\'c}, M., Koda, J., Nagai, D., Nakar, E.,
958: \& Shapiro, P.R.\ 2007, \apjl, 661, L131
959: \reference{} Navarro, J.~F., Frenk, C.~S., \& White, S.~D.~M.\
960: 1997, \apj, 490, 493 %(NFW)
961: \reference{} Nipoti, C., Londrillo, P., Zhao, H.S., \& Ciotti, L. 2007, \mnras, 379, 597
962: \reference{} Noordermeer, E., van der Hulst, J.M., Sancisi, R., Swaters, R.S.,
963: \& van Albada, T.S. 2007, \mnras, 376, 1513
964: \reference{} Nusser, A. 2008, \mnras, 384, 343
965: \reference{} Olling, R.P., \& Merrifield, M.R. 1998, \mnras, 297, 943
966: \reference{} Olling, R.P., \& Merrifield, M.R. 2001, \mnras, 326, 164
967: %\reference{} Palunas, P.~\& Williams, T.~B.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 2884
968: %\reference{} Persic, M., \& Salucci, P.\ 1988, \mnras, 234, 131
969: %\reference{} Piazza, F., \& Marinoni, C.\ 2003, \prl, 91, 141301
970: \reference{} Pointecouteau, E., \& Silk, J. 2005, \mnras, 364, 654
971: \reference{} Popowski, P., \etal\ 2005, \apj, 631, 879
972: %\reference{} Portinari, L., Sommer-Larsen, J., \& Tantalo, R.\ 2004, \mnras,
973: % 347, 691
974: \reference{} Reid, M.J., Readhead, A.C.S., Vermeulen, R.C., \&
975: Treuhaft, R.N.\ 1999, \apj, 524, 816
976: %\reference{} Rubin, V.~C., Thonnard, N., \& Ford, W.~K., Jr.\
977: % 1980, \apj, 238, 471
978: \reference{} Sackett, P.D. 1997, \apj, 483, 103
979: \reference{} Sancisi, R. 2004, Dark Matter in Galaxies, 220, 233
980: \reference{} S{\'a}nchez-Salcedo, F.J., Saha, K., \& Narayan,
981: C.A. 2008, \mnras, 223
982: \reference{} Sanders, R.H. 1996, \apj, 473, 117
983: \reference{} Sanders, R.H. 2003, \mnras, 342, 901
984: \reference{} Sanders, R.H. 2005, \mnras, 363, 459 %BTVS
985: \reference{} Sanders, R.H., \& McGaugh, S.S. 2002, \araa, 40, 263
986: \reference{} Sanders, R.H., \& Noordermeer, E.\ 2007, \mnras, 379, 702
987: \reference{} Sanders, R.H., \& Verheijen, M.A.W. 1998, \apj, 503, 97
988: \reference{} Siegel, M.H., Majewski, S.R., Reid, I.N., \& Thompson, I.B.
989: 2002, \apj, 578, 151
990: %\reference{} Sellwood, J.A., \& McGaugh, S.S. 2005, ApJ, 634, 70
991: \reference{} Sereno, M., \& Jetzer, Ph. 2006, \mnras, 371, 626
992: %\reference{} Simon, J.~D., Bolatto, A.~D., Leroy, A., \& Blitz, L.\
993: % 2003, \apj, 596, 957
994: %\reference{} Simon, J.~D., Bolatto, A.~D., Leroy, A., Blitz, L., \& Gates,
995: % E.~L.\ 2005, \apj, 621, 757
996: \reference{} Springel, V., \& Farrar, G.R. 2007, \mnras, 380, 911
997: \reference{} Tiret, O., \& Combes, F. 2007, \aap, 464, 517
998: \reference{} van der Hulst, J.M., Terlouw, J.P., Begeman, K.G.,
999: Zwitser, W., \& Roelfsema, P.R.\ 1992, ASP Conf.~Ser.~ 25:
1000: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems I, 25, 131
1001: \reference{} Wallin, J.F., Dixon, D.S., \& Page, G.L. 2007, \apj, 666, 1296
1002: \reference{} Widrow, L.M., Pym, B., \& Dubinski, J.\ 2008, arXiv:0801.3414
1003: \reference{} Wu, X., Famaey, B., Gentile, G., Perets, H., \&
1004: Zhao, H.\ 2008, arXiv:0803.0977
1005: \reference{} Xue, X.-X., \etal\ 2008, arXiv:0801.1232
1006: \reference{} Zhao, H.-S., \& Famaey, B.\ 2006, \apjl, 638, L9
1007: \end{references}
1008:
1009: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
1010: \tablewidth{0pt}
1011: \tablecaption{Milky Way Models\label{MW_mods}}
1012: \tablehead{
1013: \colhead{\rd} & \colhead{\Sd} & \colhead{$\mass_{disk}$}
1014: & \colhead{$\mass_{bulge}$} & \colhead{$\mass_{b}$} \\
1015: \colhead{(kpc)} & \colhead{($\surfdens$)} &
1016: \multicolumn{3}{c}{($10^{10}\;\Msun$)}
1017: }
1018: \startdata
1019: 2.0 & 2133 & 5.36 & 0\phd\phn\phn & 6.54 \\
1020: 2.1 & 1765 & 4.89 & 0.09 & 6.16 \\
1021: 2.2 & 1480 & 4.50 & 0.40 & 6.08 \\
1022: 2.3 & 1270 & 4.22 & 0.67 & 6.07 \\
1023: 2.4 & 1097 & 3.97 & 0.91 & 6.06 \\
1024: 2.5 & \phn 960 & 3.77 & 1.10 & 6.05 \\
1025: 2.7 & \phn 755 & 3.46 & 1.37 & 6.01 \\
1026: 3.0 & \phn 562 & 3.18 & 1.66 & 6.02 \\
1027: 3.5 & \phn 383 & 2.95 & 1.91 & 6.04 \\
1028: 4.0 & \phn 287 & 2.89 & 2.07 & 6.14 \\
1029: \enddata
1030: \tablecomments{The central surface density \Sd\ is inferred from
1031: the scale length-disk mass-bulge mass relation of the \THmod\
1032: model (Flynn \etal\ 2006). The total baryonic mass
1033: $\mass_{b} = \mass_{disk}+\mass_{bulge}+\mass_{gas}$
1034: is the sum of all known non-negligible baryonic components.}
1035: \end{deluxetable}
1036:
1037: \clearpage
1038:
1039: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccccccccc}
1040: \tablewidth{0pt}
1041: \tablecaption{Galactic Constants\label{Oort_tab}}
1042: \tablehead{
1043: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\hat \nu_1$} &
1044: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\tilde \nu_1$} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\bar \nu_1$} &
1045: \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\hat \nu_2$} \\
1046: \colhead{\rd} &
1047: \colhead{$\Theta_0$} & \colhead{A} & \colhead{B} &
1048: \colhead{$\Theta_0$} & \colhead{A} & \colhead{B} &
1049: \colhead{$\Theta_0$} & \colhead{A} & \colhead{B} &
1050: \colhead{$\Theta_0$} & \colhead{A} & \colhead{B}
1051: }
1052: \startdata
1053: 2.0 & 225 & 15.2 & $-$12.8 & 226 & 13.3 & $-$14.8 & 214 &
1054: 13.5 & $-$13.2 & 201 & 13.7 & $-$11.3 \\
1055: 2.1 & 218 & 14.3 & $-$12.8 & 221 & 12.7 & $-$14.8 & 208 &
1056: 12.8 & $-$13.2 & 195 & 12.8 & $-$11.4 \\
1057: 2.2 & 215 & 13.9 & $-$12.9 & 218 & 12.4 & $-$14.8 & 206 &
1058: 12.4 & $-$13.2 & 192 & 12.4 & $-$11.5 \\
1059: 2.3 & 214 & 13.7 & $-$13.0 & 218 & 12.3 & $-$14.9 & 205 &
1060: 12.2 & $-$13.3 & 191 & 12.2 & $-$11.6 \\
1061: 2.4 & 212 & 13.3 & $-$13.1 & 216 & 12.0 & $-$14.9 & 203 &
1062: 11.9 & $-$13.3 & 189 & 11.8 & $-$11.7 \\
1063: 2.5 & 211 & 13.1 & $-$13.1 & 215 & 11.9 & $-$14.9 & 202 &
1064: 11.8 & $-$13.4 & 188 & 11.7 & $-$11.7 \\
1065: 2.7 & 208 & 12.7 & $-$13.2 & 213 & 11.6 & $-$14.9 & 199 &
1066: 11.4 & $-$13.4 & 185 & 11.3 & $-$11.8 \\
1067: 3.0 & 205 & 12.2 & $-$13.3 & 210 & 11.3 & $-$14.9 & 197 &
1068: 11.0 & $-$13.5 & 183 & 10.8 & $-$11.9 \\
1069: 3.5 & 200 & 11.6 & $-$13.3 & 206 & 10.8 & $-$14.8 & 193 &
1070: 10.5 & $-$13.5 & 179 & 10.3 & $-$12.0 \\
1071: 4.0 & 197 & 11.3 & $-$13.2 & 204 & 10.6 & $-$14.7 & 190 &
1072: 10.3 & $-$13.4 & 176 & 10.0 & $-$11.9 \\
1073: \enddata
1074: \tablecomments{Galactic constants as predicted by each interpolation function
1075: $\nu$ for each choice of disk scale length. Galactic units are used: \rd\ is in kpc,
1076: $\Theta_0$ is in $\kms$, and A and B are in $\kms\;\textrm{kpc}^{-1}$.}
1077: \end{deluxetable}
1078:
1079: \clearpage
1080:
1081: \begin{deluxetable}{ccc}
1082: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1083: \tablewidth{0pt}
1084: \tablecaption{Inferred Surface Densities\label{MWSD_emp}}
1085: \tablehead{
1086: % \colhead{$R$ (kpc)} & \colhead{$\Sigma\;(\surfdens)$}
1087: % & \colhead{$V_c$ ($\kms$)} }
1088: \colhead{$R$} & \colhead{\Sst} & \colhead{\Vc} \\
1089: \colhead{(kpc)} & \colhead{($\surfdens$)} & \colhead{($\kms$)} }
1090: \startdata
1091: 2.47 & 620 & 197 \\
1092: 2.74 & 520 & 204 \\
1093: 3.01 & 480 & 211 \\
1094: 3.27 & 318 & 216 \\
1095: 3.52 & 300 & 212 \\
1096: 3.74 & 323 & 213 \\
1097: 3.99 & 299 & 220 \\
1098: 4.24 & 200 & 222 \\
1099: 4.47 & 199 & 219 \\
1100: 4.69 & 180 & 218 \\
1101: 4.90 & 170 & 218 \\
1102: 5.18 & 135 & 215 \\
1103: 5.34 & 170 & 213 \\
1104: 5.54 & 195 & 216 \\
1105: 5.74 & 185 & 223 \\
1106: 5.94 & 170 & 227 \\
1107: 6.11 & 165 & 231 \\
1108: 6.29 & 155 & 236 \\
1109: 6.45 & \phn 93 & 238 \\
1110: 6.62 & \phn 91 & 234 \\
1111: 6.78 & \phn 89 & 234 \\
1112: 6.92 & \phn 87 & 234 \\
1113: 7.06 & \phn 79 & 234 \\
1114: 7.18 & \phn 70 & 234 \\
1115: 7.30 & \phn 65 & 233 \\
1116: 7.41 & \phn 62 & 233 \\
1117: 7.50 & \phn 59 & 233 \\
1118: \enddata
1119: \tablecomments{Stellar surface densities outside this range follow an
1120: exponential distribution with $\rd = 2.0$ kpc and $\Sd = 2133\;\surfdens$.}
1121: \end{deluxetable}
1122:
1123: \clearpage
1124:
1125: \begin{figure}
1126: \epsscale{1.0}
1127: \plotone{f1.eps}
1128: \caption{MOND interpolation functions with the property $\nu \rightarrow 1$
1129: for $y \gg 1$ and $\nu^{-1} \rightarrow \sqrt{y}$ for $y \ll 1$. The traditional family
1130: $\nu_n$ is shown as solid lines with $n$ increasing from bottom to top.
1131: The families $\tilde \nu_n$ and $\bar \nu_n$ are shown as dashed and
1132: dash-dotted lines, respectively. For $\tilde \nu_n$, increasing $n$ leads to
1133: more gradual transitions (lower lines for higher $n$, opposite the case of
1134: the other families). For $\bar \nu_n$,
1135: the lines cross just shy of $y = 1$, with larger $n$ being the higher lines
1136: at $y > 1$. The family $\hat \nu_n$ is shown as dotted
1137: lines, with increasing amplitude for increasing $n$. This family is very
1138: similar to the traditional family with the same index in the vicinity of
1139: $y \approx 1$ relevant to galaxy dynamics, but converges to Newtonian
1140: behavior much more rapidly at the large accelerations relevant to
1141: solar system dynamics.
1142: \label{nuy}}
1143: \end{figure}
1144:
1145: \begin{figure}
1146: \epsscale{1.0}
1147: \plotone{f2.eps}
1148: \caption{Model Milky Ways for assumed disk scale lengths of 2.1 (left
1149: column) and 2.3 kpc (right column).
1150: The top panels show the bulge (dotted line),
1151: stellar disk (dashed line), gas (both H$_2$ and \HI; dash-dotted line), and
1152: total (solid line) surface mass distribution. The middle panels shows the
1153: Newtonian rotation curve for each of these components,
1154: plus the rotation curve predicted by MOND for four choices of interpolation
1155: function: $\hat \nu_1$ (solid line), $\hat \nu_2$ (dotted line), $\tilde \nu_1$
1156: (dashed line), and $\bar \nu_1$ (dash-dotted line). The solar value
1157: $\Theta_0 = 219\;\kms$ at $R_0 = 8$ kpc is marked by the point.
1158: In the bottom panels, the MOND predictions are compared to the terminal
1159: velocity data (Kerr \etal\ 1986; Malhotra 1995).
1160: \label{MW_panelA}}
1161: \end{figure}
1162:
1163: \begin{figure}
1164: \epsscale{1.0}
1165: \plotone{f3.eps}
1166: \caption{As per Fig.~\ref{MW_panelA} but for $\rd = 2.5$ and 2.7 kpc.
1167: \label{MW_panelB}}
1168: \end{figure}
1169:
1170: \begin{figure}
1171: \epsscale{1.0}
1172: \plotone{f4.eps}
1173: \caption{As per Fig.~\ref{MW_panelA} but for $\rd = 3$ and 4 kpc.
1174: \label{MW_panelC}}
1175: \end{figure}
1176:
1177: \begin{figure}
1178: \epsscale{1.0}
1179: \plotone{f5.eps}
1180: \caption{The Oort A and B constants for the various models as a function of
1181: %orbital frequency A$-$B $= \Theta_0/R_0$. All models assume $R_0 = 8$ kpc;
1182: $\Theta_0 = \Vc(R_0)$. All models assume $R_0 = 8$ kpc;
1183: see Table~\ref{Oort_tab} for the derived values of the other Galactic constants.
1184: A cross marks the model with the shortest (2 kpc) scale length for each choice of
1185: interpolation function (lines as per Fig.~\ref{MW_panelA}); progressively larger
1186: \rd\ proceed along each line as illustrated by the open circles at left.
1187: The data points represent the observed values determined
1188: by Feast \& Whitelock (1997). These give
1189: $\Theta_0 =$ (A$-$B)$R_0 = 217.5\;\kms$,
1190: very close to the $219\;\kms$ obtained from the proper motion of
1191: Sgr A$^*$ (Reid \etal\ 1999).
1192: The precise values of A and B in the models
1193: depend somewhat on the range over which they are measured,
1194: as the bumps and wiggles
1195: in the gas distribution perturb the local value of the gradient in the rotation
1196: curve (Olling \& Merrifield 2001).
1197: \label{Oort_fig}}
1198: \end{figure}
1199:
1200: \begin{figure}
1201: \epsscale{1.0}
1202: \plotone{f6.eps}
1203: \caption{The effect of the bulge model. In each of the illustrated cases,
1204: the shape of the bulge mass profile is identical. The total mass of the bulge
1205: changes with the scale length of the disk according to the prescription of
1206: the \THmod\ model (Flynn \etal\ 2006). In each panel, the two bulge models
1207: (dotted lines) differ only in their effective scale length.
1208: The upper pair of lines follow from the bulge model
1209: computed in \S \ref{thebulge} and is similar to the model of
1210: Englmaier \& Gerhard (1999).
1211: The lower pair of lines makes no geometric correction
1212: for the triaxial shape of the bulge, yet corresponds more closely to the
1213: model of Bissantz \etal\ (2003).
1214: Differences between bulge models are imperceptible outside of 3 kpc.
1215: \label{MW_bulge_var}}
1216: \end{figure}
1217:
1218: %\clearpage
1219:
1220: \begin{figure}
1221: \epsscale{1.0}
1222: \plotone{f7.eps}
1223: \caption{The outer rotation curve predicted by MOND for the Milky Way
1224: compared to the two realizations of the Blue Horizontal
1225: Branch stars in the SDSS data reported by Xue \etal\ (2008).
1226: The data points from the two realizations have been offset slightly from each
1227: other in radius for clarity;
1228: lines as per Fig.~\ref{MW_panelA}. The specific case illustrated has
1229: $\rd = 2.3$ kpc, but the rotation curve beyond 15 kpc is not
1230: sensitive to this choice. While the data clearly exceed the Newtonian
1231: expectation (declining curve), they are consistent with MOND.
1232: \label{Outer_RC}}
1233: \end{figure}
1234:
1235: \begin{figure}
1236: \epsscale{1.0}
1237: \plotone{f8.eps}
1238: \caption{The Milky Way stellar surface density (circles, top left) inferred from the
1239: terminal velocity data assuming $\hat \nu_1$ and
1240: the illustrated gas surface densities (crosses).
1241: The terminal velocities of McClure-Griffiths \& Dickey (2007)
1242: are shown at top right together with
1243: the MOND model fit to the data of Luna \etal\ (2006).
1244: The latter are shown as the square points in the lower panels.
1245: The total and component rotation curves as per Fig.~\ref{MW_panelA}
1246: are shown at bottom left. At bottom right
1247: is a close up of the fit region with both terminal velocity data sets.
1248: The bumps and wiggles in the velocity data can be reproduced, giving features
1249: similar to those seen in external galaxies in both $\Sigma(R)$ and $\Vc(R)$.
1250: \label{MW_empirical}}
1251: \end{figure}
1252:
1253: \end{document}
1254:
1255:
1256: