![]() | Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 1994. 32:
531-590 Copyright © 1994 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved |
3.3. Arguments for Baryonic Dark Matter
The cosmological nucleosynthesis argument is a two-edged sword: It requires
both baryonic and nonbaryonic dark matter
(Pagel 1990).
This is because the value of
b allowed
by Equation (3.1) almost certainly exceeds the density of visible baryons
v. A
careful inventory by
Persic & Salucci (1992)
shows that the contributions to
v are
0.0007 in spirals, 0.0015 in ellipticals and
spheroidals, 0.00035 h-1.5 in hot gas within an Abell
radius for rich clusters,
and 0.00026 h-1.5 in hot gas out to a virialization
radius in groups and poor
clusters. This gives a total of (2.2 + 0.6 h-1.5) ×
10-3, so Equation (3.1) implies
that the fraction of baryons in dark form must be in the range 70%-95% for
0.5 < h < 1. Note, however, that the Persic-Salucci
estimate does not include any contribution from low surface brighteners
galaxies
(McGaugh 1994)
or dwarf galaxies
(Bristow & Phillipps 1994).
The discrepancy between
b and
v could
be resolved if there were an
appreciable density of intergalactic gas. We know there must be some neutral
gas in the form of
Lyman-
clouds, but the
density parameter associated with the
"damped" clouds is probably no more than 0.003 h-2
(Lanzetta et al 1991)
- comparable to the density in galaxies, and consistent with the idea
that these
are protogalactic disks. Although the missing baryons could conceivably
be in
the form of a hot intergalactic medium (either never incorporated into
galaxies
or expelled by supernovae and galactic winds), the temperature would need to
be finely tuned
(Barcons et al 1991).
The Gunn-Peterson test requires
(HI) <
10-8 h-1
(Sargent & Steidel 1990),
while the COBE limit on the Compton
distortion of the microwave background (y < 3 ×
10-5) requires that, for a
temperature T at redshift z,
![]() | (3.2) |
(Mather et al 1994).
The latter limit implies that a smooth intergalactic medium
(IGM) cannot generate the observed X-ray background, although there is still
a temperature range between 104 K and 108 K in
which one could have
IGM
~
b.
Whether one could expect so much gas to remain
outside galaxies depends on its thermal history
(Blanchard et al 1992).
The other possibility is that the missing baryons are inside galactic halos.
The halo (lark matter cannot be in the form of hot gas for it would generate
too many X-rays. Recently, however,
Pfenniger et al (1994)
have argued that it
could be in the form of cold molecular gas. In their model, the gas is
initially in the form of dense cloudlets with mass 10-3
M and
size 30 AU in a rotationally
supported disk. The cloudlets then build up fractally to larger
scales. Their
model is motivated by the claim that spirals evolve along the Hubble
sequence
from Sd to Sa and that their mass-to-light ratio decreases in the
process, which
requires that the dark matter be progressively turned into stars. It
also explains
why the surface density ratio of dark matter and HI gas is constant
outside the optical disk
(Carignan et al 1990).
The final possibility-and the one that is the focus of the rest of this
review
- is that the dark baryons have been processed into stellar
remnants. Even if stellar
remnants have enough density to explain the alleged dark matter in the
Galactic
disk, this would be well below the value required by Equation (3.1), for
if all disks have the 60% dark component envisaged for our Galaxy by
Bahcall et al (1992a),
this only corresponds to
v ~
0.001. The more interesting question is
whether the baryonic density could suffice to explain the dark matter in
galactic
halos; the term "Massive Compact Halo Object" or "MACHO" has been coined
in this context. If our Galaxy is typical, the density associated with
galactic halos would be
h
0.01
h-1 (Rh / 35 kpc) where
Rh is the halo radius. [The
mass-to-light ratio for our Galaxy is (14-24) (Rh / 35
kpc)
(Fich & Tremaine 1991)
corresponding to
h =
(0.008-0.014)h-1 (Rh / 35 kpc); a
more precise
calculation would involve integrating over galaxies of all masses but
then one would need to know the mass-dependence of Rh
(Ashman et al 1993).]
Thus Equation (3.1) implies that all the dark matter in our halo
could be baryonic
only for Rh < 50 h-1 kpc. We saw
in Section 2.2 that the minimum size of our
halo is 70 kpc, which would just be compatible with this. If it is
larger, the
baryonic fraction could only be (Rh/50
h-1 kpc)-1. The cluster dark matter has
a density
c
0.1 and Equation
(3.1) implies that this matter cannot be purely
baryonic unless one invokes inhomogeneous nucleosynthesis.
We note that there is no necessity for the Population III stars to form before galaxies just as long as some change in the conditions of star formation makes their mass different from what it is today. However, the epoch of formation will be very important for the relative distribution of baryonic and nonbaryonic dark matter, especially if the nonbaryonic dark matter is "cold" so that it can cluster in galactic halos. In this case, if the Population III stars form before galaxies, one might expect their remnants to be distributed throughout the Universe (White & Rees 1978), with the ratio of the baryonic and nonbaryonic densities being the same everywhere and of order 10. If they form at the same time as galaxy formation, perhaps in the first phase of protogalactic collapse, one would expect the remnants to be confined to halos and clusters. In this case, their contribution to the halo density could be larger since the baryons would probably dissipate and become more concentrated. Angular momentum considerations suggest that the local baryon fraction must be increased by at least a factor of 10 (Fall & Efstathiou 1981). If the WIMPs are hot and cannot cluster in halos, then halos would consist exclusively of MACHOs. These possibilities are illustrated in Figure 1.