6. FUTURE PROSPECTS IN ASTROPHYSICAL THEORY
Theory lacks adequate resolution and physics. Of course these issues are
intricately connected. One needs to tackle baryon physics and the associated
possibilities for feedback. At this point in time, the leading simulations,
such as the ERIS cosmological simulation of the MW
(Guedes et al. 2011),
provide at best 10 pc
resolution in a state of the art simulation with gas and star formation. The
gas and star formation physics is included in an ad hoc way, because of the
resolution limitation. For example, while stars are known to form in the
dense cores - of density 105 cm-3 - of Giant
Molecular Clouds, the
current hydrodynamical simulations adopt SF thresholds of typically 1
cm-3 and always 102 cm-3. Sharp
increases of the SF
density threshold result in moving the SF regions outside of the nucleus
(Teyssier et al. 2010).
However,
in reality, it is the unresolved subgrid physics that determines the actual
threshold, if one even exists. Mastery of the required subparsec-scale
physics will take time, but there is no obvious reason why we cannot
achieve this goal with orders of magnitude improvement in computing power.
For the moment, phenomenology drives all modelling. This is true especially
for local star formation. A serious consequence is that physics honed on
local star-forming regions, where one has high resolution probes of
star-forming clouds and of ongoing feedback, may not necessarily apply
in the more extreme conditions of the early universe.
One issue that arises frequently is whether the perceived challenges to
CDM justify a new
theory of gravity. From MOND
(Milgrom 1983)
onwards, there are
any number of alternative theories that are designed to explain certain
observations. However, none can explain the ensemble of observations any
better than CDM,
nor do they rely on solid physical grounds. But to the extent that any
unexplained anomalies exist, these are invariably at no more than the
2 level of
significance. It seems that such "evidence" is not adequate motivation
for abandoning Einstein-Newton gravity. Indeed, while it is
overwhelmingly clear that there are many potential discrepancies with
CDM, we have
certainly not developed the optimal
CDM theory of galaxy
formation: the current models do not adequately include the baryons nor
do we reliably understand star formation, let alone feedback.
Other MOND-related issues are reviewed in
Famaey & McGaugh
(2011),
including challenges raised by the
apparent emptiness of local voids and satellite phase space correlations.
However, we regard these as more a matter of absorbing the significance
of ever deeper galaxy and 21 cm surveys, on the one hand
(for example, deep blind HI surveys show that gas-rich galaxies are the
least clustered of any galaxy population
Martin et al. 2012),
and on the other hand, of questioning the details of hitherto
inadequately modelled baryonic physics, as developed for example in
Zolotov et
al. (2012).
Whether appeal to alternative gravity is justified by inadequate baryonic
physics is a question of judgement at this point. Here is a summary of many
of these failures: we cite some key reasons why
CDM does not yet
provide a robust explanation of the observations: we list below several
examples that represent challenges for theorists.
-
Massive bulgeless galaxies with thin disks are reasonably common
(Kormendy et al. 2010).
Simulations invariably make thick disks and bulges. Indeed,
the bulges are typically overly massive relative to the disks for all
galaxies other than S0s. Massive thin disks are especially hard to simulate
unless very fine-tuned feedback is applied. A consensus is that the feedback
prescriptions are far from unique
(Scannapieco et
al. 2012).
One appealing
solution involves SN feedback. This drives a galactic fountain that
feeds the bulge. A wind is driven from the bulge where star formation is
largely suppressed for sufficiently high feedback
(Brook et al. 2012).
Another proposal includes radiation pressure from massive stars as well
as SNe. The combined feedback helps expand the
halo expansion, thereby limiting dynamical friction and bulge formation
(Macciò et
al. 2012).
- Dark matter cores are generally inferred in
dwarf spheroidal galaxies,
whereas CDM theory
predicts a cusp, the NFW profile. Strong
SN feedback can eject enough baryons from the innermost region to
create a core
(Governato et
al. 2010,
Pontzen & Governato
2012),
but this requires high early
SN feedback or a series of implausibly short bursts of star formation.
- The excessive predicted numbers of dwarf
galaxies are one of the most cited
problems with CDM.
The discrepancy amounts to two orders of
magnitude. The issue of dwarf visibility is addressed by feedback that
ejects most of the baryons and thereby renders the dwarfs invisible, at
least in the optical bands. There are three commonly discussed
mechanisms for dwarf galaxy feedback: reionization of the universe at
early epochs, SNe, and (ram
pressure and tidal) stripping. AGN-driven outflows via intermediate mass
black holes provide another alternative to which relatively little attention
has been paid
(Silk & Nusser 2010).
None of these have so far been demonstrated to provide definitive solutions.
Reionization only works for the lowest mass dwarfs. The ultrafaint dwarfs in
the MW may be fossils of these first galaxies (as checked by detailed models
(Koposov et
al. 2009,
Salvadori & Ferrara
2009,
Bovill & Ricotti
2011).
It is argued that SN feedback solves the problem for the more massive
dwarfs
(Macciò et
al. 2010).
However, this conclusion is disputed by
Boylan-Kolchin et
al. (2011),
who use the Aquarius simulations
(Springel et
al. 2008)
to predict more massive dwarfs in dark-matter-only simulations than are
observed. These authors argue that the relatively massive dwarfs should
form stars, and we see no counterparts of these systems, apart possibly
from rare massive dwarfs such as the Magellanic Clouds. We have
previously remarked that omission of baryonic physics biases the dark
matter-only simulations to an overstatement of the problem by
overpredicting dwarf central densities
(Zolotov et
al. 2012).
- The SFE in dwarfs is highly debated. Let us put
aside the high SFE at early epochs that is required to obtain
strong feedback in order to generate cores. For example, it is possible that
intermediate mass black holes could be invoked to solve this problem and
simultaneously generate the required low baryon fraction
(Peirani et
al. 2012).
In order to obtain the required late epoch evolution
(Weinmann et
al. 2012),
one might appeal to a lower SFE in dwarfs, plausibly
associated with low metallicities and hence low dust and
H2 content.
Models based on metallicity-regulated star formation can account for the
numbers and radial distribution of the dwarfs by a decreasing SFE
(Kravtsov 2010).
This explanation is disputed by
Boylan-Kolchin et
al. (2011),
who infer a range in SFEs for the dwarfs of some two orders of magnitude.
A similar result appeals to varying the halo mass threshold below which
star formation must be suppressed to account for the dwarf luminosity
function, whereas the stellar masses of many observed dwarfs violate
this condition
(Ferrero et
al. 2011).
Finally, tidal stripping may provide a solution
(Nickerson et
al. 2011),
at least for the inner dwarfs.
- Another long-standing problem relates to
downsizing. Massive galaxies are in place before lower mass galaxies as
measured by stellar mass assembly, and
their star formation time-scales and chemical evolution time-scales at their
formation/assembly epoch are shorter. One popular explanation
(Cattaneo et al. 2008)
is that galaxies cannot accrete/retain cold gas in massive halos, either
because of AGN feedback or because of virial shocks that prevent the gas
supply of the disk in cold filaments
(Birnboim & Dekel
2003).
- It is possible to develop galaxy
formation models with suitable degrees and modes of feedback that address
many of these issues. However, a major difficulty confronted by all SAMs
is that the evolution of the galaxy luminosity function
contradicts the data, either at high or at low redshift. The SAMs that are
normalized to low redshift and tuned to account for the properties of local
galaxies fail at high redshift by generating too many red galaxies
(Fontanot et
al. 2009).
Too few blue galaxies are predicted at z = 0.3.
This problem has been addressed by including AGB stars in the stellar
populations. This fix results in a more rapid reddening time-scale by
speeding up the evolution of the rest-frame near-infrared galaxy luminosity
function
(Henriques et
al. 2011).
There is a price to be paid however: now there
are excess numbers of blue galaxies predicted at z = 0.5.
- There is a well-known difficulty in matching
both the galaxy luminosity function and
Tully-Fisher scaling relation, even at z = 0.
Reconciliation of the Tully-Fisher zero point with the galaxy
luminosity function requires too high an efficiency of star formation
(Guo et al. 2010).
In fact, the problem is even worse: the models of massive spirals tuned to
fit the Tully-Fisher relation are too concentrated
(McCarthy et
al. 2012).
This is a reflection of the over-massive bulge problem in disk galaxies that
simply refuses to go away
(Navarro & Steinmetz
2000,
Abadi et al. 2003).
- The luminosity function problem is most likely
related to another unexplained property of high redshift galaxies. The
SSFR evolution at high z is very different from that at low
z. Essentially, it saturates. One finds
an infrared Main Sequence of galactic SFRs: SFR versus
M*
(Elbaz et al. 2011).
Neither the slope nor the scatter are adequately
understood. Starburst galaxies lie above the Main Sequence, but the
fraction of cosmic star formation in these systems depends on
inadequately justified assumptions about starburst duration.
For example, nebular emission and dust extinction affect infrerred ages,
and one cannot easily understand the blue continuum slopes oberved at
high redshift and lower UV luminosities
(Bouwens et
al. 2011).
- The observed rapid growth of early-type galaxy
sizes since z = 2 for fixed stellar
mass cannot be reproduced in SAMs or analytical models
(Cimatti et al. 2012):
at z = 2 galaxies are too compact.
- Much has been made of nearby rotation curve
wiggles that trace similar dips in the stellar surface density that
seemingly reduce the significance of
any dark matter contribution. Maximum disks optimize the contribution of
stars to the rotation curve, and these wiggles are most likely associated
with spiral density waves. A similar result may be true for low surface
brightness gas-rich dwarf galaxies
(Swaters et
al. 2011).
- High mass-to-light
ratios are sometimes required for maximum disk models of spiral galaxy
rotation curves, but these are easily accommodated if the IMF
is somewhat bottom-heavy. The case for IMF variations has been made for
several data sets, primarily for early-type galaxies (e.g., see
van Dokkum & Conroy
2011).
The LSB dwarfs are plausible relics of the building blocks
expected in hierarchical formation theories.
- Spiral arms are seen in the HI distribution in
the outer regions of some disks. This tells us that significant
angular momentum transfer is helping feed the optical inner disk. The
baryonself-gravity is large enough that one does not for example need to
appeal to a flattened halo, which might otherwise be problematic for the
DM model
(Bertin & Amorisco
2010).
- The slope and normalization of the baryon
Tully-Fisher relation do not agree with the simplest
CDM
prediction. The observed slope is
approximately 4, similar to what is found for MOND
(Milgrom 1983),
whereas CDM
(without feedback) gives a slope of 3
(McGaugh 2011,
McGaugh 2012),
but fails to account for the observed dispersion and curvature.
- The baryon fraction in galaxies is some 50% of
the primordial value predicted by light element nucleosynthesis. These
baryons are not in hot gaseous halos
(Anderson & Bregman
2010).
Convergence to the universal value on cluster scales is controversial:
convergence to the WMAP value is seen for X-ray clusters above a
temperature of 5 keV
(Dai et al. 2010),
but could be as large as 30% even for massive clusters
(Andreon 2010,
Scannapieco et
al. 2012).
If the latter discrepancy were to be confirmed, one would need
significant bias of baryons relative to dark matter, presumably due to
feedback, on unprecedentedly large scales.
- The distribution of the MW satellite galaxies
in a great circle
(Lynden-Bell 1982)
is unexpected in the
CDM context
(Kroupa et al. 2005).
However, infall onto halos is not spherically symmetric
(Aubert et al. 2004),
and subhalos tend to lie in a plane
(Libeskind et
al. 2005).
The details of the thickness of this plane remained to be settled (e.g.,
Kroupa et al. 2010
versus
Libeskind et
al. 2011).
- There is a significant lack of galaxies in
comparison with standard expectations in the Local Void close to the
Local Group
(Peebles 2007,
Tikhonov & Klypin
2009).
But it is not yet clear whether this region fairly low galactic latitude
region has been surveyed as closely as other regions.
- Bulk flows are found over 100 Mpc scales that
are about two standard deviations larger than expected in
CDM
(Feldman et al. 2010).
The technique primarily
uses Tully-Fisher and Fundamental Plane galaxy calibrators of the distance
scale. An X-ray approach, calibrating via the kinetic
(Sunyaev & Zeldovich
1972)
effect (kSZE), claims the existence of a bulk flow out to 800 Mpc
(Kashlinsky et
al. 2010).
However the discrepancies with
CDM are
controversial because of possible systematics. A recent detection of kSZE
confirms pairwise bulk flows of clusters at
4 and is consistent
with CDM
(Hand et al. 2012).
Several of these issues may be linked. For example, the analysis of
(Cappellari et
al. 2012)
that the IMF is non-universal, with shallower (top-heavy) IMFs for
galaxies of lower velocity dispersion, can be linked with the known
relations between velocity dispersion and metallicity (e.g.,
Allanson et al. 2009)
to produce a relation between IMF
and metallicity, which goes in the right direction: low-metallicity systems
have top-heavy IMFs. Until now, observers assumed a universal IMF when
deriving stellar masses. They have therefore overestimated the stellar
masses of
low-metallicity systems. We would like to think that this overestimation of
M* might explain at the same time the
evolution of the cosmic SSFR and
that of galaxy sizes. Indeed, at high redshift, galaxies are expected to be
more metal-poor, and the overestimate of their typical stellar masses will
lead to an underestimate of their SSFRs, relative to those of lower-redshift
galaxies. Therefore, the cosmic SSFR may not saturate at high redshift,
which will make it easier to fit to models. At the
same time, if high redshift galaxies have lower stellar masses than inferred
from a universal IMF, then for a given stellar mass, they have larger sizes
than inferred, and the too rapid evolution of galaxy sizes (relative to
models) might disappear. We propose that observers replace stellar mass
by K-band rest-frame luminosity, which,
if properly measured, can serve as a useful proxy for stellar
mass, independently of any assumed IMF.
In summary, it is clear that many problems await refinements in
theoretical understanding. No doubt, these will come about eventually as
numerical simulations of galaxy formation are refined to tackle
subparsec scales.
We are grateful to A. Cattaneo, B. Famaey, A. Graham, J. Kormendy,
P. Kroupa, S. McGaugh, A. Pontzen and A. Tutukov for very useful
comments.