用遥远星团检验基础物理学:Palomar 14观测数据分析
Testing Fundamental Physics with Distant Star Clusters: Analysis of Observational Data on Palomar 14
摘要:
我们使用遥远的外晕球状星团Palomar 14作为经典与修正牛顿动力学(MOND)的测试案例。先前的理论计算已经表明,对于像E14这样稀疏、遥远的星系团,这些理论预测的视线速度色散可以相差三倍。我们通过使用甚大望远镜(VLT)和凯克望远镜测量17个红巨星团成员的径向速度来确定Palomar 14的视线速度色散。Palomar 14的系统速度为(72.28 ± 0.12)km/s。16颗定成员星的速度色散为(0.38 ± 0.12)km/s,与Baumgardt等人(2005)对经典牛顿情形的理论预测一致。为了排除一个特殊的质量函数可能会影响我们的测量的可能性,我们推导出集群的主序列质量函数下降到0.53Msolar使用档案图像获得的哈勃太空望远镜。我们发现质量函数的斜率为1.27 ± 0.44,与正则质量函数相比,这是一个明显较浅的斜率。在MOND的情况下,推导出的星系团质量下限高于理论预测的质量。我们的数据与0.1兆太阳pc^-3的中心密度一致。我们不需要帕洛玛14号中的暗物质。如果星系团是在一个圆形轨道上,我们的光谱和测光结果反对MOND,除非这个星系团经历了显着的质量损失。
英文摘要:
We use the distant outer halo globular cluster Palomar 14 as a test case for classical vs. modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND). Previous theoretical calculations have shown that the line-of-sight velocity dispersion predicted by these theories can differ by up to a factor of three for such sparse, remote clusters like Pal 14. We determine the line-of-sight velocity dispersion of Palomar 14 by measuring radial velocities of 17 red giant cluster members obtained using the Very Large Telescope (VLT) and Keck telescope. The systemic velocity of Palomar 14 is (72.28+-0.12)km/s. The derived velocity dispersion of (0.38+-0.12)km/s of the 16 definite member stars is in agreement with the theoretical prediction for the classical Newtonian case according to Baumgardt et al. (2005). In order to exclude the possibility that a peculiar mass function might have influenced our measurements, we derived the cluster's main sequence mass function down to 0.53Msolar using archival images obtained with the Hubble Space Telescope. We found a mass function slope of 1.27+-0.44, which is, compared to the canonical mass function, a significantly shallower slope. The derived lower limit on the cluster's mass is higher than the theoretically predicted mass in case of MOND. Our data are consistent with a central density of 0.1 Msolar pc^-3. We need no dark matter in Palomar 14. If the cluster is on a circular orbit, our spectroscopic and photometric results argue against MOND, unless this cluster experienced significant mass loss.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。