Paper detail

On local dark matter density

In 2012, we applied a three-dimensional formulation to kinematic measurements of the Galactic thick disk and derived a surprisingly low dark matter density at the solar position. This result was challenged by Bovy & Tremaine (2012, ApJ, 756, 89), who claimed that the observational data are consistent with the expected dark matter density if a one-dimensional approach is adopted. We analyze the assumption at the bases of their formulation and their claim that this returns a lower limit for the local dark matter density, which is accurate within 20%. We find that the validity of their formulation depends on the underlying mass distribution. We therefore analyze the predictions that their hypothesis casts on the radial gradient of the azimuthal velocity dV/dR and compare it with observational data as a testbed for the validity of their formulation. We find that their hypothesis requires too steep a profile of dV(Z)/dR, which is inconsistent with the observational data both in the Milky Way and in external galaxies. As a consequence, their results are biased and largely overestimate the mass density. Dynamical simulations also show that, contrary to their claims, low values of dV/dR are compatible with a Milky Way like potential with radially constant circular velocity. We nevertheless confirm that, according to their criticism, our assumption dV/dR=0 is only an approximation. If this hypothesis is released, and the available information about dV/dR in the thick disk is used, the resulting local dark matter density increases by a tiny amount, from 0+-1 to 2+-3 mM_sun pc^(-3), with an upper limit of ~3.5 mM_sun pc^(-3). Hence, this approximation has negligible influence on our results. Our analysis shows that their criticism is not a viable explanation for the inferred lack of dark matter at the solar position detected by us. More studies are required to understand these unexpected results.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.