1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \begin{document}
3:
4: \newcommand{\kms}{$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$}
5: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
6: \newcommand{\HI}{H{\sc i}\ }
7: \newcommand{\LCDM}{$\Lambda$CDM}
8: \newcommand{\MLs}{\ensuremath{\Upsilon_{\star}}}
9: \newcommand{\Om}{\ensuremath{\Omega_m}}
10: \newcommand{\OL}{\ensuremath{\Omega_{\Lambda}}}
11: \newcommand{\norm}{\ensuremath{\sigma_8}}
12:
13: %\shorttitile{Cosmological Limits from LSB Galaxies}
14: %\shortauthors{McGaugh, Barker, \& de Blok}
15:
16: \title{A Limit on the Cosmological Mass Density and Power Spectrum
17: from the Rotation Curves of Low Surface Brightness Galaxies}
18:
19: \author{Stacy S.~McGaugh\altaffilmark{1}}
20:
21: \author{Michael K.~Barker\altaffilmark{1,2}}
22:
23: \and
24:
25: \author{W.J.G.~de~Blok\altaffilmark{3,4}}
26:
27: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, University of Maryland,
28: College Park, MD 20742-2421}
29: %\email{ssm@astro.umd.edu}
30: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy, University of Florida,
31: Gainesville, FL 32611-205}
32: %\email{mbarker@astro.ufl.edu}
33: \altaffiltext{3}{Australia Telescope National Facility,
34: PO Box 76, Epping NSW 1710, Australia}
35: %\email{edeblok@atnf.csiro.au}
36: \altaffiltext{4}{Bolton Fellow}
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39: The concentrations of the cuspy dark matter halos predicted by simulations
40: of cold dark matter are related to the cosmology in which the halos form.
41: Observational constraints on halo concentration therefore map into
42: constraints on cosmological parameters. In order to explain the observed
43: concentrations of dark matter dominated low surface brightness galaxies,
44: we require a cosmology with rather little power on galaxy scales.
45: Formally, we require $\sigma_8 \Gamma_{0.6} < 0.23$,
46: where $\Gamma_{0.6}$ is a modified shape parameter appropriate to this problem.
47: Practically, this means either $\Omega_m < 0.2$ or $\sigma_8 < 0.8$.
48: These limits apply as long as we insist that the cuspy halos found in
49: simulations must describe the halos of low surface brightness galaxies.
50: A low density cosmology helps with the low observed concentrations,
51: but it offers no explanation of the many cases where the shape of the density
52: profile deviates from the predicted cuspy form.
53: These cases must have suffered very extensive mass redistribution if the
54: current halo formation picture is not to fail outright. It is far from
55: clear whether any of the mass redistribution mechanisms which
56: have been suggested (e.g., feedback) are viable.
57: \end{abstract}
58:
59: \keywords{cosmology: observations --- dark matter}
60:
61: \section{Introduction}
62:
63: There has been considerable recent interest in the inner structure of
64: dark matter halos. Simulations of structure formation with cold
65: dark matter (CDM) have advanced to the point where they are
66: able to predict the density profile of dark matter halos (e.g., Navarro,
67: Frenk, \& White 1997; hereafter NFW). The predicted form of these
68: NFW halos is fairly universal, with the central halo concentrations
69: depending upon the density of the universe at the time of
70: halo formation. This depends on the cosmology, so a constraint on halo
71: concentrations translates into one on cosmological parameters.
72:
73: The rotation curves of spiral galaxies provide accurate tracers of
74: the combined potential of dark and luminous mass. As such, they
75: should provide a measure of concentration which can be mapped to
76: cosmology. Unfortunately, the simulations provide accurate predictions
77: only for the dark matter. Luminous mass can be a significant fraction of the
78: total mass at small radii in bright spirals, making it difficult to
79: extract a measure of the dark-only mass which simulations predict.
80:
81: Fortunately, there is a class of dark matter dominated, low surface brightness
82: (LSB) galaxies ideally suited for this experiment. The luminous mass of
83: these objects is very diffuse, greatly reducing the impact of the stellar
84: mass on the inferred halo parameters (e.g., de Blok \& McGaugh 1997).
85: In these systems, the luminous mass merely provides a
86: convenient tracer of the dominant dark mass.
87:
88: Useful constraints on the dark matter distribution require accurate,
89: high resolution data. McGaugh, Rubin, \& de Blok
90: (2001) present a large sample of rotation curves for LSB galaxies with
91: resolution sufficient to constrain the NFW concentration parameter.
92: We have modeled these in detail (de Blok, McGaugh, \& Rubin 2001;
93: hereafter BMR). Further such data have been obtained by de Blok \&
94: Bosma (2002; hereafter BB). In this paper,
95: we use the results of BMR and BB to obtain a constraint on cosmology.
96:
97: BMR and BB find that cuspy NFW halos provide a poor description of the data.
98: The most obvious interpretation is that real dark matter halos
99: do not have the cusps.
100: Halo models with constant density cores are more viable.
101:
102: Nonetheless, cuspy halos do seem to be the generic prediction
103: of CDM simulations, whereas soft-core isothermal halos enjoy no such theoretical
104: basis or cosmological context. Moreover, it is often possible to find NFW fits
105: to the rotation curves of individual galaxies, even if they are formally worse
106: than isothermal halo fits. There is therefore
107: some reason to persist with NFW halos despite the substantial observational
108: evidence against them. The purpose of this
109: paper is to illustrate the consequences for cosmology if we insist
110: that dark matter halos must have the cuspy NFW form.
111:
112: In \S 2 we review the data, its interpretation, and
113: the applicability of the NFW form.
114: In \S 3 we discuss the relation of CDM halos
115: to cosmological parameters and combine this with observations to
116: place limits on cosmology. The implications of these limits are
117: discussed in \S 4, as are some possible ways out.
118: Conclusions are given in \S 5.
119:
120: \section{Data}
121:
122: The data we use here are the NFW fits to the high resolution hybrid
123: H$\alpha$-\HI\ rotation curves of LSB galaxies described by BMR and BB.
124: These are based on recent optical data (McGaugh et al.\ 2001; BB)
125: combined with \HI\ data (van der Hulst \etal\ 1993; de Blok,
126: McGaugh, \& van der Hulst 1996; Swaters et al.\ 2002a)
127: in order to optimize both the
128: resolution and the radial extent of the data (see BMR). The observed rate
129: of rise of these rotation curves is rather gradual compared to the rate of
130: rise predicted by NFW halos for a broad range of plausible cosmologies
131: (Fig.~1).
132:
133: \placefigure{f1}
134:
135: It was noted some time ago that the solid body nature of the rotation
136: curves of low luminosity galaxies posed serious difficulties for cuspy
137: halos (Moore 1994; Flores \& Primack 1994; McGaugh \& de Blok 1998a).
138: A possible explanation offered for this was that the 21 cm data
139: were adversely affected by beam smearing (van den Bosch et al.\ 2000).
140: This might diffuse away the sharp signature of
141: a cuspy halo, but is no guarantee that a cusp is present (van den Bosch
142: \& Swaters 2001).
143:
144: The issue of beam smearing can be addressed by improving
145: the resolution of the observations. McGaugh et al.\ (2001) and BB
146: obtained H$\alpha$ long slit data with 1'' - 2'' spatial resolution.
147: This improves on the previous 21 cm data by more than an order of magnitude.
148: For the most part, the high resolution optical data confirms the
149: gradual rate of rise of the rotation curves of LSB galaxies which had
150: previously been indicated by the 21 cm data.
151: Reports of the severity of beam smearing have been greatly exaggerated.
152:
153: This is not to say that beam smearing was insignificant in all cases;
154: there are certainly a few where it is apparent. However, it was not
155: pervasive enough to hide the very distinctive signature of the cusps
156: which are predicted for halos in the standard \LCDM\ cosmology.
157: Moreover, the objections of McGaugh \& de Blok (1998a,b) to the CDM
158: explanation for rotation curves were not based on detailed NFW
159: fits to 21 cm data, but rather on the systematics of the shapes of
160: rotation curves. These are well predicted by the light distribution, even
161: in LSB galaxies where the luminous mass is insignificant. The cases
162: where beam smearing was significant (e.g., F574-1: Swaters, Madore, \&
163: Trewhella 2000) had been discrepant from these relations; the improved
164: optical data remedy this. This makes the problems with CDM discussed by
165: McGaugh \& de Blok (1998a) more severe, not less.
166:
167: BMR and BB show that flat core, isothermal halos always provide a better
168: description of the data than do NFW halos.
169: There is a remarkable unanimity of results on this point.
170: All high resolution rotation curve data show a strong preference for
171: soft cores (Marchesini et al.\ 2002; Bolatto et al.\ 2002;
172: Blais-Oullette et al.\ 2001; Salucci 2001;
173: Borriello \& Salucci 2001; C\^ot\'e et al.\ 2000).
174: So far as we are aware, there is no contradictory observational evidence
175: which might prefer cuspy halos in galaxies which are dark matter dominated.
176:
177: There are claims (e.g., Jimenez, Verde, \& Oh 2002) that cuspy
178: halos might do as well as halos with soft cores in high surface
179: brightness (HSB) galaxies, but these are not obviously dark matter dominated
180: (e.g., Palunas \& Williams 2000). The role of stellar mass
181: is a great impediment to any conclusions about cuspy halos in HSB galaxies.
182: In cases where constraints beyond the rotation curve can be placed on
183: stellar mass, it is very difficult to fit cuspy halos
184: (e.g., Weiner, Sellwood, \& Williams 2001).
185: This is especially true in the Milky Way where many lines of evidence
186: exclude a cuspy halo (Binney \& Evans 2001; Bissantz \& Gerhard 2001).
187: For LSB galaxies, Jimenez \etal\ (2002) confirm the results of BMR.
188:
189: The preference of the data for soft cores in LSB galaxies can no longer
190: be attributed
191: to resolution effects as suggested by van den Bosch et al.\ (2000).
192: There are now many well resolved rotation curves
193: for dark matter dominated galaxies from a number of independent sources.
194: Contrary to the expectations of beam-smearing arguments, the best resolved
195: rotation curves prove to be the least consistent with
196: cuspy halos (de Blok et al.\ 2001). It is unlikely that any significant
197: systematic effect afflicts the optical data as the rotation curves obtained
198: for the same galaxies by independent observers are in good agreement
199: (McGaugh \etal\ 2001; BB).
200:
201: Given the strong observational evidence against cuspy halos, it is perhaps
202: puzzling that their use persists. This is largely attributable to the
203: convergence of many theoretical results: cuspy halos do appear to be a
204: fundamental prediction of CDM (see below). Moreover,
205: while NFW fits to rotation curve data are distinctly inferior to fits with
206: isothermal halos, it is usually possible to find some combination
207: of NFW parameters which more or less go through the data (Fig.~1).
208: Given the importance of cuspy halos to the prevailing paradigm,
209: and the lack of theoretical basis for halos with soft cores,
210: the preference of the data for the latter might not, in itself,
211: be seen as completely disastrous.
212:
213: Fortunately, it is possible to apply further tests.
214: In CDM models the parameters of NFW halos have a direct relation to cosmology.
215: Not only must the NFW form fit (however crudely) individual rotation curves,
216: but the statistics of the parameters of these fits must be consistent with
217: the cosmology which gave rise to them. The work of BMR and BB provides, for
218: the first time, a large, homogeneous sample of
219: precise, high spatial resolution rotation curve data for dark matter dominated
220: LSB galaxies to which this test can be applied.
221: Here, we follow through on this to see what these data imply for cosmology.
222:
223: \section{Halo Parameters and Cosmology}
224:
225: \subsection{Theoretical Framework: NFW Halos}
226:
227: Cosmological simulations make clear predictions about the
228: radial density distribution of CDM halos (e.g., NFW). These have a
229: simple form which has come to be known as the NFW halo. An NFW
230: halo is specified by two parameters: a concentration $c$ and a scale such
231: as the circular velocity at the virial radius,
232: $V_{200}$. The rotation curve due to an NFW halo is
233: \begin{equation}
234: V_c^2(x)=V_{200}^2 \frac{\ln(1+cx)-cx(1+cx)^{-1}}
235: {x[\ln(1+c)-c(1+c)^{-1}]},
236: \end{equation}
237: where $x=R/R_{200}$ and $R_{200}$ (in kpc) $= V_{200}
238: h^{-1}$ (in \kms). Fits of this form to rotation curves are very sensitive
239: to the concentration parameter $c$, which itself depends on cosmological
240: parameters.
241:
242: The precise form of the inner density profile is critical to the result, so this
243: warrants further examination. The profiles of halos predicted by CDM
244: have now been studied by many groups (Dubinski 1994;
245: Cole \& Lacey 1996; NFW; Tormen, Bouchet, \& White 1997; Moore et al.\
246: 1998, 1999; Tissera \& Dominguez-Tenreiro 1998; Nusser \& Sheth
247: 1998; Syer \& White 1998; Avila-Reese,
248: Firmiani, \& Hernandez 1998; Salvador-\'Sole, Solanes,
249: \& Manrique 1998; Jing 2000; Jing \& Suto 2000; Kull 1999).
250: These investigations all either concur with the NFW halo profile,
251: or find an even steeper cusp in the inner parts. If we parameterize the
252: inner slope of the density profile by $\gamma$ so that
253: $\rho \propto r^{-\gamma}$, then the NFW result is $\gamma = 1$.
254: Moore \etal\ (1998, 1999) find a steeper inner slope ($\gamma = 1.5$)
255: from high resolution simulations. It is unclear whether this difference in
256: $\gamma$ is significant, or more a matter of the choice of fitting
257: function. If the inner slope is very steep ($\gamma > 1$), more severe
258: limits would result than those we derive here for the NFW case. Given
259: this, and the clear mapping between NFW halo parameters and
260: cosmological ones, we restrict the analysis to the NFW case ($\gamma = 1$)
261: as the conservative limit.
262:
263: There are some differences between these theoretical studies,
264: but from an observational perspective these are unimportant. The one real
265: exception to the many studies predicting $\gamma \ge 1$ is the study of
266: Kravtsov et al.\ (1998). They find\footnote{In addition to their analysis
267: of their simulations, Kravtsov et al.\ (1998) examined the \HI\ data
268: available at the time, and found that it indicated $\gamma \approx 0.2$.
269: This same value is found in subsequent optical data (de Blok et al.\ 2001).
270: The agreement between these results is another indication that systematic
271: errors are not significant.} a shallower inner
272: halo slope than NFW, with $\gamma \approx 0.4$. This value is
273: significantly discrepant from other studies, and was estimated perilously
274: close to the limits of the simulations.
275: These workers have now retracted the claim of shallow inner halo profiles
276: (Klypin et al.\ 2001), and concur with other studies that the predicted
277: slope is $\gamma \ge 1$.
278:
279: If we treat $\gamma$ as a free parameter, the data give a median
280: $\gamma \approx 0.2$, with essentially all well resolved data being
281: consistent with $\gamma = 0$ (de Blok \etal\ 2001). Though it is
282: possible to fit NFW halos to much of the data, it is not the form
283: favored by the data (\S 2).
284: If CDM simulations produced a halo with a soft core, there would
285: be little implication for cosmology. However, the vast majority of
286: theoretical work on this subject predicts $\gamma \ge 1$, with no room to
287: treat $\gamma$ as a free parameter. If we accept this as the correct
288: prediction of CDM, then the observed distribution of concentrations
289: places interesting limits on cosmology.
290:
291: \subsection{The Halo Concentration--Cosmology Connection}
292:
293: The characteristic concentration of CDM halos depends on the density of the
294: universe at the time of halo formation (NFW). This in turn depends on the
295: density parameter (\Om), the distance scale ($h$), and the amplitude of
296: the power spectrum on the relevant scales. The latter depends on both
297: the normalization (\norm) and shape of the power spectrum.
298:
299: NFW provide a prescription which relates halo parameters to the cosmology in
300: which they form. This is encapsulated by the program {CHARDEN}
301: provided by Navarro (private communication). For a specified halo mass
302: and set of cosmological parameters, {CHARDEN} gives the
303: concentration and other parameters. We use {CHARDEN} to make
304: several hundred realizations of the mean concentration parameter for a
305: variety of cosmologies. The grid of realizations samples
306: parameters in the ranges $0.1 < \Omega_m < 0.5$,
307: $0.45 < h < 0.85$, $0.2 < \sigma_8 < 2$, and $0.75 < n < 1.25$,
308: where $n$ is the scalar spectral index of the power spectrum.
309: We consider only flat ($\Om + \OL = 1$) cosmologies.
310: Open cosmologies give somewhat higher
311: concentrations, all other things being equal. Since LSB galaxies
312: require rather low concentrations, the constraints on an open cosmology
313: would be tighter.
314:
315: The results from {CHARDEN} are shown in Fig.\ 2, which plots the
316: concentration parameter $c$ as a function of cosmic parameters.
317: The concentration also depends weakly on halo mass, which could be plotted
318: as a third axis. We show the case for $V_{200} = 163$ \kms\
319: ($M = 10^{12} M_{\odot}$). This mass scale is appropriate to bright galaxies,
320: and is somewhat higher than is typical for the LSB galaxies in our
321: sample. The correlation of $c$ with $V_{200}$ goes in the sense that
322: $c$ is higher for lower $V_{200}$, so adopting this mass scale for
323: mapping between theory and observation is a conservative choice.
324: That is, a lower mass halo more appropriate for an LSB galaxy would
325: have a higher concentration. When required to match the low observed
326: concentrations, a more stringent constraint on cosmology would be implied.
327:
328: \placefigure{f2}
329:
330: The top panel of Fig.\ 2 shows the dependence of $c$ on the shape
331: parameter $\Gamma$ which to a first approximation is the product
332: $\Om h$. Here we use the common fitting formula
333: \begin{equation}
334: \Gamma = \Om h \; e^{-\left(\Omega_b+\sqrt{2h} \frac{\Omega_b}{\Om}\right)}
335: -0.32\left(n^{-1}-1\right)
336: \end{equation}
337: (e.g., White \etal\ 1996).
338: The baryon density $\Omega_b$ acts as small correction
339: factor to the shape of the power spectrum for a given $\Om h$.
340: An increase in $\Omega_b$
341: depresses the relative amount of power on smaller
342: scales, thus acting to lower halo concentrations.
343: A similar effect can be obtained by tilting the spectrum ($n < 1$),
344: but these are rather weak effects compared to $\Om h$.
345:
346: There is a clear call for a second parameter in the top panel of Fig.~2.
347: This is the normalization of the power spectrum \norm\ (middle panel).
348: The combination $\norm \Gamma$ seems to account for most components
349: of the dependence of halo concentration on cosmology. There does remain
350: some stiration at low concentration and more scatter than one would like.
351: Motivated by the fact that the relevant dependence on the mass density in
352: many structure formation problems is $\Om^{0.6}$, we define a modified
353: shape parameter $\Gamma_{0.6}$:
354: \begin{equation}
355: \Gamma_{0.6} = \Om^{0.6} h\; e^{-\left(\Omega_b+\sqrt{2h}
356: \frac{\Omega_b}{\Om}\right)} -0.32\left(n^{-1}-1\right).
357: \end{equation}
358: This is identical to the usual shape parameter with the exception
359: of the power of \Om. The result
360: is a linear dependence of halo concentration on the product
361: $\norm \Gamma_{0.6}$ (bottom panel of Fig.~2).
362:
363: The realizations in the bottom panel of Fig.\ 2 are well described by
364: the relation
365: \begin{equation}
366: c_{\Lambda,12} = 1.88+23.9 \sigma_8 \Gamma_{0.6}
367: \end{equation}
368: where $c_{\Lambda,12}$ is specific to
369: $10^{12} M_{\odot}$ NFW halos in flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmologies. The
370: residual scatter about this relation is small, with a standard deviation
371: of 0.084 in the ratio of realized to predicted concentration.
372: This relation for the characteristic
373: concentration produced by a given cosmology can be used to map
374: the observed concentrations to a limit on cosmology (\S 3.4).
375:
376: \subsection{Scatter in Concentrations}
377:
378: Equation (4) gives the characteristic concentration of NFW halos
379: for a given set of cosmological parameters. Of course, not all halos of
380: a given mass are identical ---
381: some scatter is expected about the nominal concentration.
382: This issue has been
383: investigated in detail by Jing (2000) and Bullock et al. (2001). Both
384: groups find a lognormal distribution of concentration parameters
385: with $\sigma_c = 0.18$. This apparent consistency is
386: marred by the fact that Jing (2000) uses the natural logarithm and Bullock
387: et al.\ (2001) use the base 10 logarithm so that the same value of
388: $\sigma_c$ actually corresponds to a broader distribution in the
389: latter case. Nevertheless, there does seem to be broad agreement about
390: the form the distribution should take even if the value of $\sigma_c$ is
391: not uniquely fixed by simulations.
392:
393: The histogram of observed concentrations is shown in Fig.\ 3.
394: These data are taken from BMR and BB for the case of minimum disk.
395: This choice is made to maximize the number of galaxies which can be
396: included in the analysis, and to be conservative in the sense that minimum disk
397: fits allow larger concentrations than do fits which include stars.
398: There are other sources of data which we do not include here in order to
399: maintain a consistent analysis:
400: the mass models of BMR and BB have been constructed
401: in an identical fashion. Other data for dark matter dominated galaxies
402: are limited in number so far, so their inclusion or exclusion makes little
403: difference to the histogram in Fig.~3. As discussed in \S 2, the independent
404: analyses which do exist are entirely consistent with the findings of
405: BMR and BB.
406:
407: The distribution in Fig.\ 3 is broad: there are many galaxies with low ($c<6$)
408: concentrations, and some with rather high concentrations ($c > 15$).
409: Though these are outside the nominal range one would expect for \LCDM,
410: there is a well defined central peak. There is, therefore, some hope that
411: the anticipated lognormal distribution can be fit to the data if the
412: relevant cosmological parameters are allowed to vary, and an explanation
413: can be found for the outlyers.
414:
415: \placefigure{f3}
416:
417: The observed distribution of concentrations is robust.
418: Fig.\ 3 shows three different selections of the data: 1.\ all of the data
419: of BMR and BB (54 galaxies), 2.\ only those galaxies (45) with tolerable NFW
420: fits ($\chi^2 < 2$), and 3.\ only those (31) with good fits ($\chi^2 < 1$).
421: While there are of course
422: some detailed differences between these, the overall shape of the distribution
423: is unaffected. The central peak is unmoved; its width varies little.
424: The large peak of galaxies with very low concentrations ($c< 2$) never
425: disappears. One might have hoped that by including only the best fits, a
426: sensible distribution would emerge, and the galaxies with unacceptably
427: low concentrations would disappear. Unfortunately, simply having
428: a good NFW fit is no guarantee that the halo parameters correspond
429: to any sensible cosmology: no cosmology ever produces halos with $c < 2$.
430:
431: The failure of the data in Fig.~3 to conform to the predictions of
432: \LCDM\ is not a data quality issue (McGaugh \etal\ 2001; BMR; BB).
433: Many of the galaxies with $\chi^2 < 1$ have $\chi^2 \ll 1$,
434: implying that the error bars have, if anything, been overestimated.
435: This makes the many objects with $\chi^2 > 1$ more problematic.
436: These are generally the better data. NFW fits with
437: $\chi^2 < 1$ are usually obtained when the
438: uncertainties\footnote{$\Delta \chi^2$ generally favors soft cores (BMR; BB).}
439: are large, not because the data look like cuspy halos.
440: In addition to making cuts by $\chi^2$, we have also made cuts by
441: inclination and by subjective judgement of the data quality
442: (de Blok, Bosma, \& McGaugh 2003). The results are indistinguishable
443: from those presented here.
444:
445: There are many galaxies with concentrations which are either too small
446: or too large for \LCDM.
447: There may be astrophysical explanations for these outlyers.
448: An obvious explanation for the galaxies whose concentrations are too high
449: for \LCDM\ would be that they are not entirely dark matter dominated.
450: An appropriately massive stellar disk, when subtracted off, might leave
451: the right amount of dark matter. One has to be careful with such a procedure,
452: as a heavy disk implies some compression of the original (cosmological) halo,
453: which might end up with too low a concentration if one merely aims to get
454: the ``right'' concentration currently. Moreover, it might be possible
455: to choose a stellar mass-to-light ratio
456: which simply gives a desired result. It is for this reason that a large
457: sample of dark matter dominated galaxies is best for this experiment.
458:
459: That said, it is not obvious that plausible stellar mass-to-light
460: ratios will reduce the implied concentrations of the high-$c$ outlyers.
461: In the cases where adequate photometry is available, BMR and BB present
462: mass models with $M_*/L_R = 1.4\; M_{\odot}/L_{\odot}$. In none of the cases
463: of high concentration does the inclusion of stars of this mass-to-light
464: ratio significantly reduce $c$. Implausibly large mass-to-light ratios
465: would be required to have an impact. The excess number of high-$c$ galaxies
466: may therefore pose a genuine problem.
467:
468: A more severe (and certainly genuine) problem is posed by the low-$c$ outlyers.
469: This can not be solved by allowing stars to have
470: mass, as this makes matters worse. Indeed, contrary to the case of
471: high-$c$ galaxies, attributing even a small mass to the stars can
472: have a significant downwards impact on $c$ if it is already low in the
473: minimum disk case. More generally, these extremely low concentration
474: galaxies embody the soft core problem for which many explanations have
475: been hypothesized. We therefore postpone discussion of this problem
476: until \S 4.4.
477:
478: \subsection{A Limit on Cosmology}
479:
480: In this section we derive a limit on cosmology by requiring that the
481: peak of the distribution of observed concentrations $c_p$ follow from
482: cosmology in the manner prescribed by NFW.
483: Extracting the optimal value of $c_p$ from the data is at once both
484: straightforward and challenging. Straightforward, because the peak
485: position in Fig.~3 is well defined, and challenging, because
486: the data do not agree with the NFW form. Properly, we would use the
487: $\chi^2(c,V_{200})$ of the fits from BMR and BB to compute the
488: likelihood distribution and hence the optimal $c$.
489: In practice, there is essentially zero likelihood because the NFW form
490: provides such a poor description of so much of the data.
491: In order to do this exercise at all,
492: we overlook this small failing of the NFW model and work directly with
493: the raw histogram of concentrations (Fig.~3). This is a generous thing to do,
494: as it gives credit to fits which do not really fit, and the net result
495: remains robust because the location of $c_p$ is the same regardless
496: of how the data are subdivided.
497:
498: In Table~1 we give several estimations of $c_p$. These include eyeball
499: fits of the lognormal distribution, and the robust statistical estimators
500: the median and the biweight location.
501: Formal fits with the lognormal function are ill-defined for the same
502: reason that the likelihood can not be used directly. Nonetheless,
503: the eyeball fits do nicely describe much of the data: allowing
504: the lognormal form to have a large scatter\footnote{The scatter
505: is much larger than anticipated. A large scatter in $c$
506: should have a severe impact on the scatter in the Tully-Fisher relation.
507: That it apparently does not leads to fine-tuning problems
508: (McGaugh \& de Blok 1998a; Bullock \etal\ 2001).}
509: ($\sigma_c \approx 0.6$) provides a plausible
510: explanation for the high-$c$ outlyers (while offering no explanation for the
511: low-$c$ galaxies). The skew of the distribution tends to
512: make $c_p$ from the lognormal fits a bit lower than the median and
513: biweight location. The latter are useful statistics because they are robust
514: against outlyers, though even their interpretation is open to question since
515: the many outlyers may simply be another indication that the underlying model
516: is inappropriate.
517:
518: \placetable{t1}
519:
520: We can now place a limit on cosmology by equating $c_p$ derived from the
521: observations with $c_{\Lambda,12}$ from equation~(4). In doing so, we
522: are making the approximation that the observed concentrations apply to
523: $10^{12}\;M_{\odot}$ halos rather than the particular mass scale appropriate to
524: each individual fit. In practice this is a very good approximation because
525: the predicted $c$-$V_{200}$ relation is very flat (NFW), so the correction to
526: $c$ when projected to the $V_{200}$ appropriate for a given galaxy
527: is usually smaller than the uncertainty in $c$.
528: Moreover, most LSB galaxy halos should be less massive than
529: $10^{12}\;M_{\odot}$,
530: so $c_p$ should, if anything, be compared to the higher concentrations
531: predicted for lower mass halos.
532:
533: Evaluating equation~(4) with the lognormal $c_p = 5.4$ yields
534: $\sigma_8 \Gamma_{0.6} = 0.15$. For comparison, standard \LCDM,
535: with $\Om = 0.33$, $h = 0.66$, $n =1.03$ (Netterfield \etal\ 2001),
536: $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.02$ (O'Meara \etal\ 2001),
537: and $\sigma_8 = 0.96$ (Pierpaoli, Scott, \& White 2001) gives\footnote{
538: For these parameters, the ordinary shape parameter is $\Gamma = 0.18$,
539: slightly less than used by Pierpaoli et al.\ (2001): $\Gamma = 0.23$.}
540: $\sigma_8 \Gamma_{0.6} = 0.28$. This is nearly twice the value derived here,
541: and predicts substantially higher concentrations: $c_{\Lambda,12} = 8.5$
542: (Fig.~3). Such concentrated halos have a very distinctive dynamical
543: signature and would be {\it easily\/} recognized by current observations
544: (de Blok et al.\ 2003).
545:
546: If dark matter halos were well described by cuspy halos, the peak of
547: the distribution of concentration parameters would provide a useful
548: measurement of $\sigma_8 \Gamma_{0.6}$. However, the NFW form, upon which this
549: analysis is based, does not provide a good description of the data (BMR; BB).
550: Instead, halos with lower density cores are preferred. Even persisting
551: with NFW halos as we have done here, the observations demand rather low
552: concentrations. Not only is $c_p$ lower than expected, but there is also
553: the substantial population of galaxies with $c < 2$ which have no explanation
554: in the cuspy halo picture. The data are telling us that dark matter halos
555: can not be as concentrated as nominally expected. Rather than attempt to
556: use this method to measure cosmic parameters,
557: we ask: what cosmology could produce tolerable concentrations?
558: This leads to an upper limit on $\sigma_8 \Gamma_{0.6}$
559: which is quite firm as long as the NFW picture of halo formation holds.
560:
561: In order to limit cosmology to parameters which might produce suitably low
562: concentrations, we note that 95\% of our realizations have
563: $c/c_{\Lambda,12} < 1.15$. A given $c_p$ cannot originate from a cosmology
564: which produces halos more concentrated than this. The largest estimate of
565: the peak concentration from Table~1 is $c_p = 6.4$. Multiplying this by 1.15
566: to allow for the residual scatter about equation~(4) leads to the limit
567: \begin{equation}
568: c_p < 7.4.
569: \end{equation}
570: The corresponding limit on cosmology is
571: \begin{equation}
572: \sigma_8 \Gamma_{0.6} < 0.23.
573: \end{equation}
574: This is a very hard limit, as we have adopted the largest estimate
575: of the peak location from Table 1 and hedged upwards from there.
576: The data certainly do not indicate such a large $c_p$,
577: and the true vale of $\sigma_8 \Gamma_{0.6}$ must be much less
578: if there has been no radical redistribution of mass subsequent to
579: halo formation.
580:
581: \section{Discussion}
582:
583: In this section, we discuss possible interpretations of the
584: concentration limit on cosmology. These come in several basic flavors:
585: \begin{enumerate}
586: \item CDM halos must have cusps, so the stated limits hold and provide
587: new constraints on cosmological parameters.
588: \item Something (e.g., feedback; modification of the nature of dark matter)
589: eliminates cusps and thus the constraints on cosmology.
590: \item The picture of halo formation suggested by CDM simulations is wrong.
591: \end{enumerate}
592: The bulk of the dynamical data may well prefer the last of these
593: interpretations, potentially with drastic consequences for CDM
594: (McGaugh \& de Blok 1998a,b; de Blok \& McGaugh 1998;
595: Sanders \& Verheijen 1998; Sanders 2000; Sanders \& McGaugh 2002).
596: We focus the discussion here on items (1) and (2) which
597: have a variety of sub-flavors.
598:
599: \subsection{Assumptions}
600:
601: As in any study of cosmological parameters, a number of assumptions
602: must be made. Before trying to sort out possible interpretations, it is
603: worth examining the validity of the assumptions underlying our analysis.
604: Everything we do here is confined to the context of the
605: currently standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. In order to map the
606: rotation curve results to cosmological parameters, we have made
607: a number of operative assumptions:
608: \begin{enumerate}
609: \item The NFW halo is the correct prediction of CDM.
610: \item The concentration parameter maps to cosmology via the NFW prescription.
611: \item NFW halos provide an adequate description of the data.
612: \item LSB galaxies reside in typical halos.
613: \end{enumerate}
614:
615: Assumption (1) has already been discussed in \S 3.1, and appears certainly
616: to be true modulo only the remaining debate over the precise
617: slope of the inner cusp. Since $\gamma = 1$ is at the lower limit
618: of predicted cusp slopes, this assumption is both valid and conservative.
619: Steeper cusps would result in more stringent limits on cosmology. If we accept
620: (1), (2) follows.
621:
622: Assumption (3), that NFW halos provide an adequate description of the
623: rotation curve data, is the most dubious (\S 2). The most obvious interpretation
624: of these data is that dark matter halos do not have cusps (de Blok \etal\ 2001),
625: or do not exist at all (Sanders \& McGaugh 2002).
626: However, the point of this paper is to explore the consequences if we
627: insist on retaining cuspy halos.
628:
629: Assumption (4) is important because we treat the concentrations
630: determined from LSB galaxy rotation curves as a measure of that
631: produced by cosmology. If for some reason halo concentration is
632: correlated with surface brightness, then the cosmological measure will be
633: biased. There is little reason to suspect such a bias in theory,
634: and none empirically.
635:
636: In most modern theories of galaxy formation
637: (e.g., Dalcanton, Spergel, \& Summers 1997; Mo, Mao, \& White 1998;
638: McGaugh \& de Blok 1998a; van den Bosch \& Dalcanton 2000)
639: it is the spin of the halo and not its concentration which
640: dictates the surface brightness. Concentration may be correlated with
641: formation epoch, and scatter in the latter may well be the dominant cause
642: of scatter in the former (Wechsler et al.\ 2002). It is not unreasonable
643: to suppose that LSB galaxies form late (McGaugh \& Bothun 1994), but this
644: does not happen in theories where spin is the dominant factor determining
645: surface brightness. Moreover, the range of formation times discussed by
646: Wechsler et al.\ (2002) is far too small to explain the range of observed
647: concentrations.
648:
649: One could of course construct a theory which
650: imposes a correlation between concentration and surface brightness.
651: The motivation to do this is not independent of the problems
652: discussed here, and faces a host of other problems (discussed in detail
653: by McGaugh \& de Blok 1998a). Most importantly, such an approach
654: runs contrary to the remarkable empirical normalcy of LSB galaxies.
655:
656: In terms of their physical properties (metallicity, gas content, etc.),
657: LSB galaxies are quite normal for their part of the luminosity function.
658: They adhere to the same Tully-Fisher relation as do brighter
659: galaxies (Sprayberry et al.\ 1995; Zwaan et al.\ 1995; Tully \& Verheijen
660: 1997), and to the same baryonic Tully-Fisher relation
661: (McGaugh et al.\ 2000; Bell \& de Jong 2001; Verheijen 2001).
662: This is usually interpreted to mean that LSB galaxies inhabit halos
663: which are similar to those of HSB galaxies of the same mass.
664: Invoking a correlation between concentration and surface brightness
665: predicts a shift in the Tully-Fisher relation between HSB and LSB galaxies
666: which is not observed.
667:
668: The empirical normalcy of LSB galaxies includes not just the normalization
669: of their asymptotic rotation velocities (the Tully-Fisher relation),
670: but extends also to the {\it shapes\/} of their rotation curves. These
671: are quite predictable given knowledge of their luminosity distribution
672: (e.g., Persic \& Salucci 1991; de Blok \& McGaugh 1998;
673: Sanders \& McGaugh 2002). This obedience\footnote{The adherence of LSB
674: galaxies to the scaling relation for rotation curve shape is also another
675: indication that the data do not suffer from systematic errors.}
676: to scaling relations established for HSB galaxies is a strong indication
677: that LSB galaxies are dynamically normal.
678: There is, therefore, no reason to suspect that assumption (4) is invalid.
679:
680: \subsection{How Firm a Limit?}
681:
682: Proceeding with the above assumptions, we next examine the firmness
683: of the concentration limit on cosmology. So long as we insist on
684: having cuspy halos, this limit is valid. Indeed, we have been quite
685: conservative in placing it. On every occasion where there has been
686: any room to hedge, we have done so in the direction which maximized
687: the allowed concentration. Hedges which act in this way include:
688: \begin{enumerate}
689: \item The adoption of minimal disks.
690: \item Ignoring adiabatic contraction.
691: \item Ignoring the angular momentum catastrophe.
692: \item The use of heavy halos to predict $c_{\Lambda,12}$.
693: \item Ignoring the low-$c$ spike in the distribution.
694: \item Adopting the largest estimate of $c_p$.
695: \item Making a generous allowance for scatter in
696: the $c_{\Lambda,12}$-$\sigma_8 \Gamma_{0.6}$ relation.
697: \end{enumerate}
698: These combine to make the limit $\sigma_8 \Gamma_{0.6} < 0.23$ both
699: conservative and hard. Taking the best-guess value of any of these
700: effects would lead to a lower value, in some cases by a large factor.
701:
702: Item (1) is very generous. Stars do have mass, but we have
703: pretended they do not. Consequently, the concentrations we use do not
704: refer to the primordial dark matter halo as they should, but rather to
705: the present dark matter halo plus the stars. Subtracting off the stars
706: lowers $c$, even in LSB galaxies where dark matter domination minimizes
707: this effect but does not entirely eliminate it.
708:
709: Items (2) and (3) depend on the galaxy formation process. The natural
710: expectation is that whatever baryons collapse to form the disk will drag
711: along some of the dark matter (2). This will make the present-day halo
712: more concentrated than the primordial halo which CHARDEN computes. This
713: effect is probably modest in LSB galaxies, but should act some --- in the
714: wrong direction. Item (3) is hard to quantify (Steinmetz \& Navarro 2002),
715: but could be quite severe, and again acts in the wrong direction.
716:
717: The remaining items on the above list have been discussed as they arose
718: in the analysis, and we will not repeat this here. The point is that
719: there are many turns where we have adopted concentrations which are,
720: if anything, too high. The fact that fiducial \LCDM\ cosmologies predict
721: still higher concentrations emphasizes the severity of this problem.
722:
723: \subsection{Implications for Cosmology}
724:
725: Having reviewed our assumptions and the validity of the concentration
726: limit, we turn now to the first flavor of possible interpretations.
727: If we insist that galaxy halos must have cusps,
728: the limit imposed on cosmology is unavoidable.
729: Here we consider the implications of this limit in the context of other
730: cosmological constraints. In a subsequent section we will address
731: the possibility of dodging these constraints by invoking processes
732: which might alter cusps (e.g., feedback; warm or self-interacting dark matter).
733:
734: The concentration limit $\sigma_8 \Gamma_{0.6} < 0.23$
735: excludes a significant fraction cosmological parameter space,
736: including that occupied by our fiducial \LCDM\ parameters (\S 3.4).
737: In order to satisfy this limit, we need to reduce the
738: density of the universe at the time of halo collapse. This can be
739: accomplished by lowering the matter density directly, or by delaying
740: halo formation by suppressing the power spectrum on galaxy scales.
741: We examine these possibilities in turn.
742:
743: \subsubsection{Matter Density}
744:
745: For a standard power spectrum and baryon density,
746: the concentration limit excludes $\Omega_m^{0.6} h > 0.28$ (Fig.~4).
747: This limit is fairly
748: restrictive, excluding some parameter combinations which are otherwise
749: viable. $\Omega_m = 1$ is right out, and even $\Omega_m \approx 0.3$
750: cannot be sustained. Cuspy halos and ``standard'' \LCDM\
751: are mutually exclusive.
752:
753: \placefigure{f4}
754:
755: It may be possible to salvage the \LCDM\ picture with cuspy halos if the
756: density is low. For $h = 0.7$, the concentration limit requires $\Om < 0.22$.
757: While this is lower than usually quoted for \LCDM,
758: it is actually in keeping with a number of recent determinations.
759: Bahcall et al.\ (2000) give $\Omega_m = 0.16 \pm 0.05$.
760: A similar number is also given
761: by Rines \etal\ (2001) --- $\Omega_m = 0.17 \pm 0.05$, and
762: by Hoekstra et al.\ (2001) --- $\Omega_m = 0.13 \pm 0.07$ for a flat universe.
763: These independent determinations are consistent with the findings presented
764: here, and may be an indication of a rather small density parameter which
765: is acceptable to many independent data sets (Peebles 1999).
766: However, it may be hard to simultaneously reconcile such a low matter density
767: with the requirement for both flatness $\Om + \OL \approx 1$
768: (de Bernardis et al.\ 2000) and the limit on the cosmological
769: constant from gravitational lensing, $\OL < 0.7$ (Kochanek 1996;
770: Cooray, Quashnock, \& Miller 1999).
771:
772: \subsubsection{Power Spectrum}
773:
774: If a density parameter as low as $\Om < 0.22$ is not acceptable, the
775: requirement stipulated by the concentration limit may be satisfied
776: by a decrease in the
777: amplitude of the power spectrum on galaxy scales. This can be
778: achieved either by a tilt or a decrease in the normalization
779: \norm, or some combination of both. For example, for $\Om = 0.33$
780: and $h = 0.66$, we need $\sigma_8 \lesssim 0.8$ (Fig.~5).
781: Lately there have been contradictory tugs on the value of the normalization,
782: with a combined analysis of the 2dF and CMB data suggesting
783: $\sigma_8 \approx 0.73$ (Lahav \etal\ 2002), while high multipole
784: CBI data suggest $\sigma_8 \sim 1$ (Bond \etal\ 2002).
785:
786: \placefigure{f5}
787:
788: The same effect could also be achieved by tilting the power spectrum
789: ($n \lesssim 0.9$) or by introducing a break in the power spectrum at
790: some appropriate scale. Such behavior is contrary to the scale-free nature
791: of CDM, but might occur with warm dark matter or an admixture of hot dark
792: matter. This may not be necessary as a purely cosmological solution appears
793: to be least marginally viable. A universe with a low mass density or
794: suppressed power spectrum (or both) could satisfy the concentration limit,
795: though it would leave open many related questions.
796:
797: \subsection{Halo Modification}
798:
799: This section examines the second flavor interpretation,
800: that some mechanism alters the initially cuspy form of dark matter halos.
801: This approach has the advantage that it might explain why galaxy
802: observations prefer halos with soft cores to those with cusps,
803: with little or no consequence for cosmology. It has the rather substantial
804: disadvantage that some drastic and poorly understood effect must be invoked
805: to alter halos, thus destroying the elegance and predictive power of the
806: NFW paradigm.
807:
808: \subsubsection{Feedback}
809:
810: The mechanism most commonly invoked in this context is feedback.
811: This is the notion that the action of star formation, most particularly
812: winds and supernovae from massive stars, injects sufficient mechanical energy
813: into the interstellar medium to alter the surroundings. The hope is that such
814: feedback might mediate between the cosmological initial state of halos
815: predicted by simulations and their current observed state.
816:
817: The term feedback has come to be used to mean a great variety of
818: things. We must immediately make a distinction between the relatively mild
819: sort of feedback activity which is actually observed in galaxies, and the
820: explosive feedback required to address the problems posed by
821: soft core halos. There is no doubt that the former does occur
822: (e.g., Martin 1998, 1999; Rupke, Veilleux, \& Sanders 2002),
823: and probably plays an important role in enriching the intergalactic medium.
824: However, the amount of gas involved is generally a small percentage of a
825: galaxy's interstellar medium, which is a small fraction of its baryonic mass,
826: which is a fraction of its dark mass. The observed examples
827: of feedback are far too feeble to have any significant impact on the
828: distribution of the dominant dark mass.
829:
830: In the context of galaxy formation, feedback is invoked to do a variety
831: of things which bear little relation to observed feedback. Feedback from
832: some star formation might suppress further star formation. If this varies
833: systematically with galaxy mass, it might translate the steep halo mass
834: function predicted by CDM into the flat observed galaxy luminosity function.
835: The dramatic loss of angular momentum experienced by baryons in live-halo
836: simulations (the ``angular momentum catastrophe'') leads to the formation
837: of disks which are much too small. Feedback is invoked as a possible cure
838: for this, though sensible numerical implementations have no such effect
839: (e.g., Navarro \& Steimentz 2000). Most importantly for our purposes here,
840: explosive feedback is invoked to drive out so much gas that it gravitationally
841: drags some of the dark mass with it, perhaps creating a soft core where
842: initially there had been a cusp (e.g., Navarro, Eke, \& Frenk 1996).
843:
844: Supposing, for the moment, that explosive feedback might be able to turn cusps
845: into cores, there are two possible interpretations. One is that {\it all\/}
846: galaxies are affected so that the current dark matter distribution
847: bears no resemblance to the cosmological prediction. In this case,
848: observations of LSB galaxies are fossil records of the mass redistribution
849: process with no implication for cosmology. In effect, this invokes a
850: {\it deus ex machina\/} to render irrelevant all rotation curve data.
851: A second, less extreme possibility is that cusp destroying
852: feedback occurs only in {\it some\/} galaxies.
853: In this case, feedback need only be invoked to explain
854: galaxies with $c < 2$. The cuspy halo fits to the
855: remaining galaxies hold --- as do the cosmological limits derived from
856: them. Since all of the estimators in Table~1 already ignore the low
857: concentration galaxies, the constraint $\sigma_8 \Gamma_{0.6} < 0.23$
858: is unaltered.
859:
860: A separate question is whether explosive feedback really happens and
861: can have the desired effect
862: of converting a dark matter halo with a cusp into one with a core.
863: McGaugh \& de Blok (1998a) raised an empirical objection to this scheme.
864: The LSB galaxies in which this is an issue are quite gas rich
865: (McGaugh \& de Blok 1997; Schombert, McGaugh, \& Eder 2001) --- a curious
866: state for galaxies which were supposed to have exploded so energetically that
867: so much gas was swept out that the dark matter was pulled along with it. One
868: does require the expulsion of a huge amount of mass for this mechanism
869: to have any hope of working, as the dark matter can be dragged along with
870: the gas only by the weak shackles of gravity. In order to arrive at the
871: current observed state, LSB galaxies must undergo a double-whammy formation
872: scenario. First, an intense knot of star formation must occur inside the
873: primordial cuspy halo. Feedback from this star formation must completely
874: detonate the baryonic component of the initial galaxy, sweeping out all
875: gas and hopefully converting the dark matter cusp into a constant density
876: core. Subsequent to this mass redistribution, some gas must reaccrete to
877: reform the galaxy into its more tenuous present state. This seems like
878: a lot to ask, and has the undesirable consequence of inserting an untestable
879: intermediary step between prediction and reality.
880:
881: The fundamental problem with invoking explosive feedback to redistribute mass
882: is that it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. A small fraction of the
883: minority baryons --- those which form the first stars --- must have a
884: tremendous effect
885: on the majority dark matter. This huge effect must be most severe where the
886: dark mass is most strongly concentrated, and mediated only by the weak force
887: of gravity.
888:
889: Basic physics considerations make the required mass redistribution highly
890: unlikely. Numerical simulations of feedback suggest much weaker effects.
891: For example, MacLow \& Ferrara (2000) find that feedback can be effective
892: only in galaxies several orders of magnitude less massive than those considered
893: here, and only in ejecting gas, not redistributing dark mass. Gnedin \&
894: Zhao (2002) put a strict limit on the possible effects of explosive
895: feedback by examining the consequences of the instantaneous removal of
896: all gas. They find that even this extreme fails to destroy the initial
897: cusp. Hence, it seems unlikely that explosive feedback can have the mass
898: redistributing effects which are required to address the cusp-core problem.
899:
900: \subsubsection{Other Mass Redistribution Mechanisms}
901:
902: There could be mechanisms to redistribute mass besides feedback.
903: Weinberg \& Katz (2001) suggested that bars in disks could impart enough
904: angular momentum to halo particles to alter the halo mass distribution.
905: However, this process can only be effective when the disk is a significant
906: fraction of the total mass. Hence this mechanism might at best work in
907: HSB galaxies like the Milky Way. It can not, as Weinberg \& Katz note, explain
908: dark matter dominated LSB galaxies unless explosive feedback is invoked
909: first. Whether this mechanism is viable even in principle has been questioned
910: by Sellwood (2003).
911:
912: Another dynamical mechanism invokes the inspiraling of supermassive
913: black hole pairs (Milosavljevi{\' c} et al.\ 2002). This process might
914: displace up to ten times the black hole mass, and could well be important
915: in elliptical galaxies. However, the black hole mass--velocity dispersion
916: relation (Merritt \& Ferrarese 2001) predicts very small black hole
917: masses for bulgeless, dynamically cold LSB galaxies: far too small
918: to cause any significant redistribution of dark mass. For example,
919: a galaxy comparable in mass to many of the LSB galaxies discussed here
920: is M33. The limit on the central black hole mass in M33 is
921: $< 3000\; M_{\odot}$ (Merritt, Ferrarese, \& Joseph 2001).
922: Unless LSB galaxies host abnormally massive black holes,
923: and acquired them in pairs through mergers (which these galaxies
924: appear not to have experienced), this mechanism can not apply to them.
925:
926: \subsubsection{Dark Matter Physics}
927:
928: Mass redistribution mechanisms which invoke the interaction of baryons
929: and CDM appear either not to be viable, or not to apply to LSB galaxies.
930: One might next consider modifying the nature of dark matter in order to
931: alter the cuspy halo prediction. Such ideas fall into two broad categories:
932: those which prevent the formation of cusps in the first place, and those which
933: might reduce their concentration to more tolerable levels. Either would
934: relieve or eliminate the cosmological constraints imposed here in the
935: strict context of pure CDM.
936:
937: Perhaps the first case to consider is a mixed hot plus cold dark matter
938: cosmogony. Neutrinos do appear to have mass, and so will affect structure
939: formation at some level. Massive neutrinos have the effect of suppressing
940: the power spectrum on small scales relative to what it would have been in
941: their absence. This operates in the desired direction, though a fairly
942: hefty neutrino fraction ($\Omega_{\nu}/\Omega_m \gtrsim 10\%$)
943: is probably needed to have a
944: significant impact. This would require neutrinos near the current upper
945: bound on their mass (a few eV). This may well be possible, but can at
946: best reduce the concentrations of halos a bit. The halos should still have
947: cusps, not cores. So while it may be possible in this fashion to relax
948: somewhat the constraints on cosmology, the more basic question about the
949: shape of the density distribution of the dark matter halo remains unaddressed.
950:
951: An effect similar to a mixture of hot and cold dark matter can be obtained with
952: warm dark matter (WDM). In this case, the mass of the particle is fine-tuned
953: so that it is neither hot nor cold dynamically. Again, the power spectrum
954: is reduced on small scales, and the halo profile may be affected as well
955: (Bode, Ostriker, \& Turok 2001). The latter point is controversial,
956: as Knebe et al.\ (2002) find that halo cuspiness persists in WDM.
957: Observationally, there are already serious objections to WDM.
958: Fermionic WDM should have
959: a characteristic phase space density which appears to be inconsistent
960: with galaxy and cluster data (Sellwood 2000; Marchesini et al.\ 2002).
961:
962: The net effect of H+CDM and WDM models are similar for this problem.
963: Some suppression of the power spectrum on small scales makes the
964: cosmological limits more palatable. The presence of soft cores in
965: at least some galaxies remains a difficult issue.
966:
967: More radical suggestions about the nature of dark matter have also been
968: made to address the cusp-core problem. These include annihilating and
969: self-interacting dark matter (SIDM: Spergel \& Steinhardt 2000).
970: Annihilating dark matter may form halos with a core (e.g., Craig \&
971: Davis 2001) but could over-suppress small scale power. SIDM produces
972: a cusp for small interaction cross-sections, but can produce a core
973: with sufficiently large cross-sections (Dav\'e et al.\ 2001).
974: The cross-section that works for galaxies does not work for clusters
975: (Yoshida et al.\ 2000), so one must invoke a velocity-dependent cross-section.
976: This seems rather contrived, and other objections have been raised:
977: Kochanek \& White (2000) argue that the gravothermal catastrophe
978: will cause SIDM cusps to steepen faster than they flatten.
979:
980: There remains ample room to consider further modifications to the nature
981: of dark matter. On the one hand, these seem like a more promising approach
982: to the problem of turning cusps into cores than does explosive feedback.
983: On the other hand, the problem is considerably more subtle than just
984: turning a cusp into a core. It is well established observationally
985: that the distributions of dark and luminous matter are tightly coupled
986: (Sanders \& McGaugh 2002; see also McGaugh 2000).
987: The cusp-core problem is just one manifestation
988: of this more fundamental issue. None of the approaches we have reviewed
989: have made any attempt to explain the full richness of the observational
990: phenomenology. SIDM interacts with
991: itself, but not with baryons. It is hard to imagine how any explanation
992: of the coupling between baryons and dark matter can be achieved by
993: modifications of cold dark matter which explicitly ignore the baryons.
994:
995: \section{Conclusions}
996:
997: We have examined the cosmological consequences of the
998: rotation curve data for dark matter dominated LSB galaxies in the
999: context of cuspy NFW halos. If we insist that dark matter halos must
1000: have the cusps suggested by current structure formation simulations,
1001: an interesting limit on cosmology follows. This concentration limit is
1002: \begin{equation}
1003: \sigma_8 \Gamma_{0.6} < 0.23,
1004: \end{equation}
1005: where $\Gamma_{0.6}$ is a suitably modified shape parameter (equation~3).
1006: As a practical matter, this means either a low density universe
1007: ($\Om < 0.2$) or one with a depressed power spectrum on small scales
1008: ($\sigma_8 < 0.8$).
1009:
1010: Such a universe is marginally inconsistent with the nominal
1011: parameters of standard \LCDM. However, it is consistent with a number
1012: of recent determinations of the density parameter, and with most other
1013: constraints. It does therefore appear to be possible to tweak cosmology
1014: in order to satisfy our concentration constraint.
1015:
1016: If dark matter halos do not have cusps, then there is no constraint on
1017: cosmology. However, cuspy halos do appear to have become a fundamental
1018: tenant of CDM structure formation. If so, the implications for cosmology
1019: are unavoidable.
1020:
1021: Adjusting cosmological parameters can only
1022: address the problem of halo {\it concentration\/}.
1023: It does nothing to explain the {\it shape\/} of the radial mass distribution
1024: in dark matter halos, which must be cuspy in the current paradigm.
1025: In many objects with well-determined rotation curves, this appears not to
1026: be the case. Tweaking cosmology is a necessary step, but only a partial
1027: solution to one aspect of a broader problem.
1028:
1029: Various mechanisms have been proposed to convert cusps into constant density
1030: cores. These include explosive feedback and modifications of the nature
1031: of dark matter (e.g., warm or self-interacting dark matter). Some cusp
1032: altering mechanism does appear to be necessary. However, it is far from
1033: obvious that any of the ideas which have been discussed so far are viable.
1034: All suffer from serious problems, both empirical and theoretical. At this
1035: juncture, a satisfactory explanation of observed galaxy dynamics remains
1036: beyond galaxy formation theory.
1037:
1038: \acknowledgements We are grateful to many people for their support and
1039: encouragement, most especially Vera Rubin, Albert Bosma, Jerry Sellwood,
1040: and Jim Peebles. We thank the referee and editor for a thorough review.
1041: The work of SSM was supported in part by NSF grant AST0206078.
1042:
1043: \clearpage
1044:
1045: {\sl Note Added ---} While this paper was in submission, some related
1046: results have appeared. Zentner \& Bullock (2002) have performed a similar
1047: analysis, finding that a suppression of the power spectrum on small
1048: scales helps with the concentration problem. This appears to be in
1049: complete accord with our results. Swaters et al.\ (2002b) have very
1050: recently provided a new analysis of rotation curves in addition to those
1051: studies already cited. This work appears consistent with previous results
1052: insofar as $\chi^2$ prefers halos with cores to those with cusps. There
1053: are a number of objects in common with our sample; adding the new
1054: independent cases into Fig.~3 makes no difference to our result.
1055:
1056: \clearpage
1057:
1058: \begin{references}
1059: \reference{AR} Avila-Reese, V., Firmiani, C., \& Hernandez, X. 1998,
1060: \apj, 505, 37
1061: \reference{} Bahcall, N.A., Cen, R., Dav\'e, R., Ostriker, J.P., Yu, Q.
1062: 2000, \apj, 541, 1
1063: %\reference{} Begeman, K.G., Broeils, A.H. \& Sanders, R.H.
1064: % 1991, \mnras, 249, 523
1065: \reference{} Bell, E.F., de Jong, R.S. 2001, \apj, 550, 212
1066: %\reference{COBE} Bennett, C. L. et al.\ 1994, \apj, 436, 423
1067: \reference{} Binney, J.J. \& Evans, N. 2001, \mnras, 327, L27
1068: \reference{} Bissantz, N., \& Gerhard, O. 2001, preprint (astro-ph/0110368)
1069: \reference{} Bode, P., Ostriker, J.~P., \& Turok, N.\ 2001, \apj, 556, 93
1070: \reference{} Bolatto, A.D., Simon, J.D., Leroy, A., Blitz, L. 2002,
1071: \apj, 565, 238
1072: \reference{} Bond, J.R., et. al. 2002, astro-ph/0205386
1073: \reference{} Borriello, A. \& Salucci, P. 2001, \mnras, 323, 285
1074: \reference{} Blais-Ouellette, S., Amram, P., \& Carignan, C. 2001,
1075: \aj, 121, 1952
1076: \reference{} Bullock, J.S., Kolatt, T.S., Sigad, Y., Somerville, R.S.,
1077: Kravtsov, A.V., Klypin, A.A., Primack, J.R., Dekel, A.
1078: 2001, \mnras, 321, 559
1079: \reference{CL} Cole, S. \& Lacey, C. 1996, \mnras, 281, 716
1080: \reference{} Cooray, A.R., Quashnock, J.M., \& Miller, M.C. 1999, \apj, 511, 562
1081: \reference{} C\^ot\'e, S., Carignan, C., Freeman, K.C. 2000, \aj, 120, 3027
1082: \reference{} Craig, M.~W.~\& Davis, M.\ 2001, New Astronomy, 6, 425
1083: \reference{} Dalcanton, J.J., Spergel, D.N., Summers, F.J. 1997, \apj, 482, 659
1084: \reference{} Dav{\' e}, R., Spergel, D.~N., Steinhardt, P.~J., \&
1085: Wandelt, B.~D.\ 2001, \apj, 547, 574
1086: \reference{Boomerang} de Bernardis, P., et al. 2000, \nat, 404, 955
1087: \reference{} de Blok, W.J.G., \& Bosma, A. 2002, \aap, submitted
1088: \reference{dBM97} de Blok, W.J.G., \& McGaugh, S.S. 1997, \mnras, 290, 533
1089: \reference{dBM98} de Blok, W.J.G., \& McGaugh, S.S. 1998, \apj, 508, 132
1090: \reference{} de Blok, W.J.G., Bosma, A., \& McGaugh, S.S. 2003, submitted
1091: \reference{} de Blok, W.J.G., McGaugh, S.S., \& Rubin, V.C. 2001,
1092: \aj, 122, 2396
1093: \reference{} de Blok, W.J.G., McGaugh, S.S., Bosma, A., \& Rubin, V.C. 2001,
1094: \apj, 552, L23
1095: \reference{BMH} de Blok, W.J.G., McGaugh, S.S., \& van der Hulst,
1096: J.M. 1996, \mnras, 283, 18
1097: \reference{Dub} Dubinski, J. 1994, \apj, 431, 617
1098: \reference{FP} Flores, R.A., \& Primack, J.R. 1994, \apj, 427, L1
1099: \reference{} Gnedin, O.Y., \& Zhoa, H. 2002, \mnras, in press (astro-ph/0108108)
1100: \reference{Maxima} Hanany, S., et al.\ 2000, \apj, 545, L5
1101: \reference{} Hoekstra, H., Franx, M., Kuijken, K., Carlberg, R.G., Yee, H.K.C.,
1102: Lin, H., Morris, S.L., Hall, P.B., Patton, D.R., Sawicki, M.,
1103: Wirth, G.D. 2001, \apj, 548, L5
1104: \reference{} Jimenez, R., Verde, L., Oh, S.P. 2002, astro-ph/0201352
1105: \reference{Jing} Jing. Y., 2000, \apj, 535, 30
1106: \reference{JS} Jing, Y.P., \& Suto, Y. 2000, \apj, 529, L69
1107: \reference{} Klypin, A.A., Kravtsov, A.V., Bullock, J.S., \&
1108: Primack, J.R. 2001, \apj, 554, 903
1109: \reference{} Knebe, A., Devriendt, J.~E.~G., Mahmood, A., \& Silk, J.\ 2002,
1110: \mnras, 329, 813
1111: \reference{} Kochanek, C.S. 1996, \apj, 466, 638
1112: \reference{} Kochanek, C.~S.~\& White, M.\ 2000, \apj, 543, 514
1113: \reference{KKBP} Kravtsov, A.V., Klypin, A.A., Bullock, J.S., \&
1114: Primack, J.R. 1998, \apj, 502, 48
1115: \reference{Kull} Kull, A. 1999, \apj, 516, L5
1116: \reference{} Lahav, O., et al. 2002, astro-ph/0205382
1117: \reference{} Mac Low, M.~\& Ferrara, A.\ 1999, \apj, 513, 142
1118: \reference{} Marchesini, D., D'Onghia, E., Chincarini, G., Firmani, C.,
1119: Conconi, P., Molinari, E., Zacchei, A. 2002, \apj, in press
1120: \reference{} Martin, C.L. 1998, \apj, 506, 222
1121: \reference{} Martin, C.L. 1999, \apj, 513, 156
1122: \reference{} McGaugh, S.S. 2000, in {\it Galaxy Dynamics: from the Early
1123: Universe to the Present}, eds. Combes, F., Mamon, G.A., \& Charmandaris, V.
1124: (San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific), ASP 197, 153
1125: \reference{} McGaugh, S.S., \& Bothun, G.D. 1994, \aj, 107, 530
1126: \reference{} McGaugh, S.S., \& de Blok, W.J.G. 1997, \apj, 481, 689
1127: \reference{MdB98a} McGaugh, S.S., \& de Blok, W.J.G. 1998a, \apj, 499, 41
1128: \reference{MdB98b} McGaugh, S.S., \& de Blok, W.J.G. 1998b, \apj, 499, 66
1129: \reference{} McGaugh, S.S., Rubin, V.C., \& de Blok, W.J.G. 2001, \aj, 122, 2381
1130: \reference{} McGaugh, S.S., Schombert, J.M., Bothun, G.D.,
1131: de Blok, W.J.G. 2000, \apjl, 533, L99
1132: \reference{} Merritt, D.~\& Ferrarese, L.\ 2001, \apj, 547, 140
1133: \reference{} Merritt, D., Ferrarese, L., \& Joseph, C.~L.\ 2001,
1134: Science, 293, 1116
1135: \reference{} Milosavljevi{\' c}, M., Merritt, D.,
1136: Rest, A., \& van den Bosch, F.~C.\ 2002, \mnras, 331, L51
1137: \reference{Moore} Moore, B. 1994, \nat, 370, 629
1138: \reference{MGQSL} Moore, B., Governato, F., Quinn, T., Stadel, J.,
1139: \& Lake, G. 1998, \apj, 499, L5
1140: \reference{MQGSL} Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato, F., Stadel, J.,
1141: \& Lake, G. 1999, \mnras, 310, 1147
1142: \reference{NFWdisks} Navarro, J.F. 1998, preprint (astro-ph/9807084)
1143: \reference{} Navarro, J.~F., Eke, V.~R., \& Frenk, C.~S.\ 1996, \mnras,
1144: 283, L72
1145: \reference{NFW} Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., \& White, S.D.M. 1997,
1146: 493, \apj, 490, 493 (NFW)
1147: %\reference{NS} Navarro, J.F., \& Steinmetz, M. 2000, \apj, 528, 607
1148: \reference{} Navarro, J.F., \& Steinmetz, M. 2000, \apj, 538, 477
1149: \reference{} Netterfield, C.B., et al.\ 2001, preprint (astro-ph/0104460)
1150: \reference{Adi} Nusser, A., \& Sheth, R. 1998, \mnras, 303, 685
1151: \reference{} O'Meara, J.M., Tytler, D., Kirkman, D., Suzuki, N.,
1152: Prochaska, J.X., Lubin, D., Wolfe, A.M. 2001, \apj, 552, 718
1153: \reference{OS} Ostriker, J.P., \& Steinhardt, P.J. 1995, \nat, 377, 600
1154: \reference{} Palunas, P., \& Williams, T.B. 2000, \aj, 120, 2884
1155: \reference{} Peebles, P.J.E. 1999, \pasp, 111, 274
1156: \reference{} Percival, W.J., et al.\ 2001, \mnras, 327, 1297
1157: \reference{} Persic, M.~\& Salucci, P.\ 1991, \apj, 368, 60
1158: \reference{} Pierpaoli, E., Scott, D., \& White, M. 2001, \mnras, 325, 77
1159: \reference{} Rines, K., Geller, M.J., Kurtz, M.J., Diaferio, A.,
1160: Jarrett, T.H., \& Huchra, J.P.\ 2001, \apjl, 561, L41
1161: \reference{} Rupke, D.S., Veilleux, S., \& Sanders, D.B. 2002, \apj, 570, 588
1162: \reference{HSTkey} Sakai, S. et al. 2000, \apj, 529, 698
1163: \reference{SSM} Salvador-\'Sole, E., Solanes, J.-M., \& Manrique, A.
1164: 1998, \apj, 499, 542
1165: \reference{} Salucci, P. 2001, \mnras, 320, L1
1166: \reference{} Sanders, R.H. 1996, \apj, 473, 117
1167: \reference{} Sanders, R.H., \& Verhiejen, M.A.W. 1998, \apj, 503, 97
1168: \reference{} Sanders, R.H.,\& McGaugh, S.S. 2002, \araa, in press
1169: \reference{} Schombert, J.M., McGaugh, S.S., \& Eder, J.A. 2001, \aj, 121, 2420
1170: \reference{} Sellwood, J.A. 2000, \apj, 540, L1
1171: \reference{} Sellwood, J.A. 2003, submitted (astro-ph/0210079)
1172: \reference{SprayTF} Sprayberry, D., Bernstein, G.M., Impey, C.D., \&
1173: Bothun, G.D. 1995, \apj, 438, 72
1174: \reference{} Spergel, D.N., \& Steinhardt, P.J. 2000, \prl, 84, 3760
1175: \reference{} Steinmetz, M., \& Navarro, J.~F.\ 2002, New Astronomy, 7, 155
1176: \reference{Strauss} Strauss, M.A. \& Willick, J.A. 1995, \physrep, 261, 271
1177: \reference{Rob} Swaters, R.A., Madore, B.F., \& Trewhella, M. 2000,
1178: \apj, 2000, \apj, 531, L107
1179: \reference{} Swaters, R.A., van Albada, T.S., van der Hulst, J.M., Sancisi, R.
1180: 2002a, \aap, in press (astro-ph/0204525)
1181: \reference{} Swaters, R.A., Madore, B.F., van den Bosch, F.C., \&
1182: Balcells, M. 2002b, \apj, in press (astr-ph/0210152)
1183: \reference{SW} Syer, D. \& White, S.D.M. 1998, \mnras, 293, 337
1184: \reference{TDT} Tissera, P. \& Dominguez-Tenreiro, R. 1998, \mnras, 297, 177
1185: \reference{TBW} Tormen, G., Bouchet, F.R., \& White, S.D.M.
1186: 1997, \mnras, 286, 865
1187: \reference{} Tully, R.B., \& Verheijen, M.A.W. 1997, \apj, 484, 145
1188: \reference{} van den Bosch, F.C., \& Dalcanton, J.J. 2000, \apj, 2000,
1189: \apj, 534, 146
1190: \reference{BRDB} van den Bosch, F.C., Robertson, B.E., Dalcanton,
1191: J.J., \& de Blok, W.J.G. 2000, \aj, 119, 1579
1192: \reference{} van den Bosch, F.C., \& Swaters, R.A. 2001, \mnras, 325, 1017
1193: \reference{vdH} van der Hulst, J.M., Skillman, E.D., Smith, T.R.,
1194: Bothun, G.D., McGaugh, S.S., \& de Blok, W.J.G. 1993, \aj, 106, 548
1195: \reference{} Verheijen, M.~A.~W.\ 2001, \apj, 563, 694
1196: \reference{} Wechsler, R.~H., Bullock, J.~S., Primack, J.~R.,
1197: Kravtsov, A.~V., \& Dekel, A.\ 2002, \apj, 568, 52
1198: \reference{} Weinberg, M.D., \& Katz, N. 2001, astro-ph/0110632
1199: \reference{} Weiner, J., Sellwood, J.A., \& Williams, T.B. 2001, \apj, 546, 931
1200: \reference{} White, M., Viana, P. T. P., Liddle, A. R., \& Scott, D. 1996,
1201: \mnras, 283, 107
1202: \reference{} Yoshida, N., Springel, V., White, S.~D.~M., \& Tormen, G.\ 2000,
1203: \apjl, 544, L87
1204: \reference{} Zentner, A.R. , \& Bullock, J.S. 2002, \prd, 66, 043003
1205: \reference{ZHBM} Zwaan, M.A., van der Hulst, J.M., de Blok,
1206: W.J.G., \& McGaugh, S.S. 1995, \mnras, 273, L35
1207: \end{references}
1208:
1209: \clearpage
1210:
1211: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
1212: %\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{.6}
1213: \tablecaption{Peak Location Estimates\label{t1}}
1214: \tablewidth{0pt}
1215: \tablehead{
1216: \colhead{Sample} & \colhead{Median} & \colhead{Biweight} & \colhead{Lognormal}
1217: }
1218: \startdata
1219: All & 6.0 & 6.4 & 5.4 \\
1220: $\chi^2 < 2$ & 5.7 & 6.3 & 5.4 \\
1221: $\chi^2 < 1$ & 5.7 & 6.2 & 5.3 \\
1222: \enddata
1223: \end{deluxetable}
1224:
1225: \clearpage
1226:
1227: \begin{figure}
1228: \plotone{f1.eps}
1229: \caption{The rotation curve of the low surface brightness galaxy UGC 5750.
1230: Also shown are the best fitting NFW halo parameters
1231: ($c=2.6$, $V_{200} = 123$ km s$^{-1}$: dashed line)
1232: for the limiting case of a zero mass (minimum) disk,
1233: and what the NFW halo should look like for a galaxy of this rotation
1234: velocity in the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology
1235: ($c=10$, $V_{200} = 67$ km s$^{-1}$: solid line).
1236: The excess of the solid line over the data illustrates the
1237: cuspy halo problem. Though an NFW fit can be made (dashed line),
1238: it is a poor description of the data, and requires a very
1239: low concentration ($c=2.6$ does not occur in any plausible cosmology).
1240: These problems become more severe as allowance is made for stars (BMR; BB).
1241: \label{f1}}
1242: \end{figure}
1243:
1244: \begin{figure}
1245: \epsscale{0.6}
1246: \plotone{f2.eps}
1247: \caption{
1248: The concentration parameter $c_{\Lambda,12}$ predicted for a $10^{12} M_{\sun}$
1249: NFW halo in a flat universe as a function of cosmic parameters.
1250: In the top panel we show the concentration as a function of the shape
1251: parameter $\Gamma$, which depends on $\Omega_m$, $h$, $\Omega_b$, and $n$.
1252: There is a clear correlation but the realizations are stirated
1253: by their different normalizations. This is remedied by considering
1254: the product of the shape parameter and the normalization, $\sigma_8$
1255: (middle panel). There is still some residual scatter which is reduced by use
1256: of the modified shape parameter, $\Gamma_{0.6}$ (bottom panel).
1257: This depends on $\Omega_m^{0.6}$
1258: rather than the linear power of $\Omega_m$ which appears in the standard
1259: shape parameter (equations 2 and 3). The line
1260: in the bottom panel (equation 4) is a fit to these realizations
1261: which we use to relate the observed concentrations to cosmology.
1262: \label{f2}}
1263: \end{figure}
1264:
1265: \clearpage
1266: \begin{figure}
1267: \epsscale{1.0}
1268: \plotone{f3.eps}
1269: \caption{
1270: Histogram of the observed concentrations from the data of BMR and BB for the
1271: case of minimum disk. Several histograms are shown for different
1272: subsets of the data. The open histogram shows all data from BMR and BB.
1273: The hatched histogram includes only those objects for which the NFW fits
1274: have $\chi^2 < 2$. The shaded histogram includes only those with
1275: $\chi^2 < 1$. The shape of the observed distribution is robust to these
1276: changes. The characteristic concentration is low ($c \approx 6$)
1277: and the peak of extremely low concentrations ($c < 2$) never disappears.
1278: The data look nothing like the prediction of $\Lambda$CDM (dotted line:
1279: Jing 2000). A crude fit of the lognormal form advocated by Jing (2000) and
1280: Bullock et al.\ (2001) can be made (dashed line) if 1.\ cosmological
1281: parameters are adjusted in accordance with the observed low median
1282: concentration, 2.\ the amount of scatter is allowed to be much larger
1283: than found in simulations, and 3.\ the galaxies with $c < 2$ are ignored.
1284: \label{f3}}
1285: \end{figure}
1286:
1287: \clearpage
1288: \begin{figure}
1289: %\plotone{omh.ps}
1290: \plotone{f4.eps}
1291: \caption{
1292: The region of the $\Omega_m$-$h$ plane excluded by
1293: the concentration limit on $\sigma_8 \Gamma_{0.6}$ assuming
1294: $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.02$.
1295: The entire region $\Omega_m^{0.6} h > 0.28$
1296: is excluded if we require NFW halos to fit observed rotation
1297: curves in the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmology.
1298: For comparison, we also show $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ error ellipses
1299: around independent determinations of $\Omega_m$ and $h$.
1300: The asterisk at the point (0.66,0.33) illustrates the standard $\Lambda$CDM
1301: value as fit by Netterfield et al.\ (2001).
1302: Such a ``high'' density universe and cuspy halos are mutually exclusive.
1303: the cross at the point (0.71,0.16) takes for the
1304: Hubble constant the results of the HST key project on the
1305: extragalactic distance scale (Sakai et al.\ 2000).
1306: For the mass density, we take the value estimated by
1307: by Bahcall et al.\ (2000): $\Omega_m = 0.16 \pm 0.05$.
1308: It is possible to consider NFW halos for many galaxies
1309: in such a very low density universe, though a plausible explanation
1310: for those with $c<2$ remains wanting.
1311: \label{f4}}
1312: \end{figure}
1313:
1314: \clearpage
1315: \begin{figure}
1316: %\plotone{s8n.ps}
1317: \plotone{f5.eps}
1318: \caption{Power spectra parameters
1319: excluded by the concentration limit for nominal ($\Omega_m,h$) of
1320: (0.33,0.66). Also shown (asterisk with $1 \sigma$ and $2 \sigma$ error
1321: ellipses) are the best estimates of these parameters from
1322: Netterfield et al.\ (2001: $n = 1.03 \pm 0.10$) and Pierpaoli et al.\
1323: (2001: $\sigma_8 = 0.96 \pm 0.07$). A substantial reduction in the
1324: amplitude of the power spectrum on galaxy scales can decrease the
1325: concentration of dark matter halos to tolerable levels, though it leaves
1326: open the question of why their preferred shape is not cuspy.
1327: \label{f5}}
1328: \end{figure}
1329:
1330: \end{document}
1331:
1332: