Arxiv:1805.00122V2 [Astro-Ph.CO] 6 Nov 2018 ∼ ÷ 26]

CERN-TH-2018-102, INR-TH-2018-008, KCL-PH-TH/2018-16 Galactic Rotation Curves vs. Ultra-Light Dark Matter: Implications of the Soliton { Host Halo Relation Nitsan Bar,1 Diego Blas,2, 3 Kfir Blum,1, 2 and Sergey Sibiryakov2, 4, 5 1Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel 2Theory department, CERN, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland 3Theoretical Particle Physics and Cosmology Group, Department of Physics, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK 4LPPC, IPHYS, Ecole Politechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland 5Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 60th October Anniversary Prospect, 7a, 117312 Moscow, Russia (Dated: November 7, 2018) Bosonic ultra-light dark matter (ULDM) would form cored density distributions at the center of galaxies. These cores, seen in numerical simulations, admit analytic description as the lowest energy bound state solution (\soliton") of the Schroedinger-Poisson equations. Numerical simulations of ULDM galactic halos found empirical scaling relations between the mass of the large-scale host halo and the mass of the central soliton. We discuss how the simulation results of different groups can be understood in terms of the basic properties of the soliton. Importantly, simulations imply that the energy per unit mass in the soliton and in the virialised host halo should be approximately equal. This relation lends itself to observational tests, because it predicts that the peak circular velocity, measured for the host halo in the outskirts of the galaxy, should approximately repeat itself in the central region. Contrasting this prediction to the measured rotation curves of well-resolved near-by galaxies, we show that ULDM in the mass range m ∼ (10−22 ÷ 10−21) eV, which has been invoked as a possible solution to the small-scale puzzles of ΛCDM, is in tension with the data. We suggest that a dedicated analysis of the Milky Way inner gravitational potential could probe ULDM up to −19 m . 10 eV. I. INTRODUCTION galactic halos, roughly within the de Broglie wavelength, 1 1 v − m − xdB 190 22 pc: (1) Two forms of matter could provide the cosmological ≈ 100 km=s 10− eV equation of state, required for dark matter (DM): non- relativistic massive particles (e.g. WIMPs), or the classi- The core, referred to as \soliton" in the literature [4, cal background of an ultra-light bosonic field oscillating 5, 8, 9], corresponds to a coherent quasi-stationary solution of the ULDM equations of motion and its den- around a minimum of its potential (e.g. axions or axion- 1 like particles). On cosmological scales, WIMPs and ultra- sity profile can be derived analytically . This match be- light dark matter (ULDM) behave similarly. However, on tween analytic and numerical simulation results offers a scales comparable to its de Broglie wavelength, ULDM unique opportunity to understand and extend the simu- behaves markedly different from WIMPs [1{13]. lations, making the ULDM model potentially more pre- dictive than the WIMP paradigm. For near-by dwarf Axion-like particles with exponentially suppressed galaxies (v 10 km/s) or Milky Way (MW)-like galaxies masses arise in the context of string theory [12, 14{16]. (v 100 km/s),∼ the soliton core could be resolved with They are produced by misalignment and for mass in the current∼ observational tools, offering a test of the model. 22 18 range m (10− 10− ) eV their cosmic abundance Attempts to detect, constrain, or fit ULDM soliton could naturally∼ match÷ the observed DM density. cores using galactic rotation velocity and velocity disper- 22 21 sion data were discussed in the literature [2, 3, 6{8, 23{ ULDM with mass m (10− 10− ) eV is partic- arXiv:1805.00122v2 [astro-ph.CO] 6 Nov 2018 ∼ ÷ 26]. Some of these analyses fitted a soliton profile to ularly motivated due to several puzzles, facing the stan- describe entire galaxies [2, 3, 23]. This exercise leads to dard WIMP paradigm on galactic scales (see, e.g. [12, 17] 23 small ULDM particle mass, m . 10− eV, in strong for recent reviews). This range of m is in some tension tension with cosmological bounds [18{22]. Furthermore, with the matter power spectrum, inferred from Ly-α for- 21 numerical simulations [6, 7, 10, 11, 13] have shown that est analyses [18{22], which yields a bound m & 10− eV. galactic halos above a certain mass would exhibit a more Nevertheless, since the strongest Ly-α bound constraints come from the smallest and most non-linear scales, where systematic effects are challenging, we believe it prudent to seek additional methods to constrain the model for 1 Strictly speaking, the soliton solution is only known numerically. 22 m & 10− eV. With some abuse of the word, we refer to it here as analytical to emphasize that the solution can be found by integrating a Numerical simulations [6, 7, 10, 11, 13] show that simple differential equation in a procedure that takes < 1 sec on ULDM forms cored density profiles in the inner region of a standard laptop. 2 complex structure, with the central soliton transiting into results are confirmed, solitons formed by ULDM with 19 a large-scale host halo composed of an incoherent su- masses m . 10− eV will produce order-one contribu- perposition of multiple scalar field wavepackets. Conse- tion into the mass budget of the inner MW. A dedicated quently, other works [8, 24{26] analysed galactic profiles analysis of inner MW kinematics { including simultane- using a soliton+host halo description. ous modeling of the baryonic mass and the soliton { could 19 A key question in comparing the soliton+host halo potentially test ULDM up to m . 10− eV. model to kinematical data, is how to model the transi- The outline of this paper is as follows. In Sec. II we tion between the central soliton and the host halo. Pre- review some basic properties of the soliton. In Sec. III vious phenomenological analyses [8, 24{26] defined sepa- we discuss the soliton{host halo relations found in sim- rate free parameters for the host halo and for the soliton, ulations, and show that these relations can be under- for each individual galaxy in the sample. On the numer- stood in terms of fundamental properties of the soliton ical simulation side, several studies focused on finding a and the halo. The simulations of [6, 7] are considered soliton{host halo relation [6, 10, 11, 13]. The point in in Sec. III A; they can be summarised by the statement finding a soliton{host halo relation is, of course, that it (E=M) soliton = (E=M) halo, where E is the total energy j j could tie together the behaviour of ULDM in the large- (kinetic+gravitational, within the virial radius, for the scale host halo to predict the central core with fewer free halo) and M is the mass (again within the virial radius, parameters. for the halo). The simulations of [13] are considered in In this work we consider the soliton{host halo relations, Sec. III B; their soliton{halo result can be summarised by the statement E = E . We argue that this reported by different numerical simulation groups [6, 7, jsoliton jhalo 10, 11, 13]. Our first observation is that properties of the result is unlikely to represent realistic galaxies above a analytic soliton solution can provide important insight certain size. on the numerical results. We show that: (i) the soliton{ In Sec. IV, adopting the soliton{host halo relation host halo relation, reported in [13], essentially attributes of [6, 7], we work out its observational consequences. the total energy (kinetic+gravitational) of the halo to We show that in ULDM galaxies satisfying this relation, the dominant soliton. This energetic dominance of the the rotation velocity in the inner core should be approxi- soliton is unlikely to hold for realistic galaxies above a mately as high as the peak rotation velocity in the outer certain size; (ii) the soliton{host halo relation, reported part of the galaxy. In Sec. IV A we compare this analysis in [7], essentially equates the energy per unit mass in the to numerical profiles taken directly from the published soliton to the energy per unit mass in the virialised halo. simulation results, finding good agreement. In Sec. IV B This relation can apply to real galaxies. we compare this prediction to real galaxies from [27, 28], 22 21 finding tension for m (10− 10− ) eV. We show Assuming the soliton{host halo relation of [7], we show ∼ ÷ that it leads to a prediction: the peak circular velocity that the intrinsic scatter in the soliton{host halo relation characterising the host halo on large scales (few kpc for does not resolve the discrepancy. typical (109 1010)M galaxies) should repeat itself in In Sec. V we calculate how baryonic effects could mod- ÷ ify the soliton solution. In Sec. V A we consider a smooth the core on small scales (. 1 kpc), insensitive to the details of the host halo density profile. This implies an fixed distribution of baryonic mass, deferring the case of observational constraint that can be tested without free a super-massive black hole to App. B. These results are parameters. Applying this test to high resolution rota- applied to the MW in Sec. V B. tion curves of late-type galaxies from [27, 28], we find In Sec. VI we compare our results to previous litera- 22 21 ture and discuss some caveats to our analysis. Sec. VII that ULDM in the mass range m (10− 10− ) eV is disfavoured by the data. Baryonic∼ physics÷ is unlikely contains a summary of our results and open questions.

Load more