1
$\begingroup$

What are the papers where the first evidence for dark matter related with the stability of galactic discs, and the orbits of galaxy satellites?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it shows insufficient prior research. $\endgroup$ – AccidentalFourierTransform May 24 '18 at 18:15
  • $\begingroup$ The problem is this, my professor said to include these in my paper. Nevertheless every search I've done about it comes up empty. Google, Google scholar, arxiv. $\endgroup$ – user3636673 May 24 '18 at 18:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Possible duplicate of physics.stackexchange.com/questions/406057/… $\endgroup$ – freecharly May 24 '18 at 21:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JDOe Try asking on HSM.SE. Perhaps there your question won't be voted as off-topic. $\endgroup$ – Geremia May 24 '18 at 22:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm voting to leave this open because specific-references are on-topic. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos May 25 '18 at 10:00
2
$\begingroup$

I'll have a go. Keep in mind that at the time of the references given below, "dark matter" wasn't yet commonly thought of as some unknown weakly interacting particle, it was just "gravitating stuff we can't see", it was common at the time to assume that it might be gas in some phase that wasn't easily observed (no strong emission/absorption signal). Actually we still think there's a bunch of unseen gas out there, but not enough to account for the "needed" amount of dark matter. Anyway, before I get off on too big a tangent...

For disk stability, I'm fairly confident that I've found the original reference in Ostriker & Peebles (1973). They also cite Kalnajs (1972), who notes "The fixed background field provided by the halo has a stabilizing effect on the disk [...]", but this is in a more theoretical context of an orbital stability study, whereas Ostriker & Peebles directly make the connection to the then- (and still) hot topic of the missing mass problem in real-world systems. Given that you asked for "evidence", this seems to better fit the bill.

For satellite motion, it depends if you count Zwicky (1933), which deals with the velocity dispersion of galaxies in clusters, which is much higher than expected from an estimate of the mass of those galaxies. This is usually cited as the first argument for dark matter. If galaxies in a cluster satisfy your definition of 'satellites', then this may be what you're after. Otherwise I propose Einasto et al. (1974). They use interacting pairs of galaxies (I'd call one of these a 'satellite') to infer the mass in galactic systems out to large radii, and note a large amount of unseen mass.

Notes on accessibility of the articles: the Einasto paper is from Nature and is old, which for me made it a bit of a pain to access, I only got it by trying my accounts at libraries at several universities (or you can pay...). I think the others are easier, from what I can see it looks like ADS provides them open to anyone (but am on a university network, so I can't easily confirm this). The Zwicky article is in German. There is another Einasto et al. paper in the same year which may also be of interest (also Nature, also a pain to access), it has to do with the morphological segregation of satellites of the Milky Way, which they propose to attribute to a massive unseen halo (of gas, however).

If you're curious to know how I located these, my starting point was citations in the section on disk stability in Binney & Tremaine's "Galactic Dynamics" textbook, and for the satellites citations in the section outlining the rise of the CDM paradigm in "Galaxy formation and evolution" by Mo, van den Bosch & White. From there I read the articles I cite, and did a bit of legwork on ADS, to check for earlier work.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.