Transcript star-www.st

DM density profiles in non-extensive theory
Eelco van Kampen
Institute for Astro- and Particle Physics
Innsbruck University
In collaboration with Manfred Leubner and Thomas Kronberger
Classical gravity is an extremely rich theory
The wonderful world of r –1 :
2
i
mi m j
p
H 
G
i 2mi
pairs ri j
i j

A theory with many equations and approximations
from Saslaw (1987)
Classical Gravity (including GR)
•
•
•
•
simple but highly non-linear
no equilibrium state (although timescales can be long)
long-range, so hard to isolate systems (galaxies & galaxy clusters !)
gravitational systems tend to form substructure
Gravitational systems are therefore intrinsically hard to model, so
approximations are always made
If classical gravity is already hard to ‘use’, adding hydrodynamics
(gas, stars !) makes things only harder
Given this, do we really need alternative theories ? Have we properly
solved the highly non-linear classical equations yet ? Bottom line:
Astrophysical systems
are messy and simply hard to model even
2
mm
p
with ‘just’ H   i  G  i j
i
2mi
pairs
i j
ri j
Empirical fitting relations for DM density profiles
Burkert (1995), Salucci (2000)
 DM ~
1
(1  r / rs )(1  r 2 / rs2 )
Moore et al. (1999)
1
~
(r / rs )(1  r / rs ) 2
Navarro, Frenk & White (1996,
1997)
 DM
Zhao (1996)
 DM ~
Kravtsov et al. (1998)
and others …
1
(r / rs ) (1  r / rs )(3 )
From exponential dependence
to power-law distributions
Standard Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics
based on extensive entropy measure
SB  kB  pi ln pi
pi…probability of the ith microstate, S extremized for equiprobability
Assumtions:
particles independent from e.o.
 no correlations
isotropy of velocity directions  extensivity
Consequence: entropy of subsystems additive  Maxwell PDF
microscopic interactions short ranged, Euclidean space time
This does not account properly for long-range interactions
 introduce correlations via non-extensive statistics
Non-extensive statistical physics
Subsystems A, B:
EXTENSIVE ENTROPY
non-extensive statistics
Renyi (1955), Tsallis (1985)
Sq ( A  B)  S q ( A)  S q ( B) 
  1 /(1  q)
1
S q ( A) S q ( B)

(PSEUDOADDITIVE) NON-EXTENSIVE ENTROPY
Dual nature:
+ tendency to less organized state, entropy increase
- tendency to higher organized state, entropy decrease
generalized entropy :
with 1/κ
S   ( pi11/  1)
 long–range interactions / mixing
 quantifies degree of non-extensivity /couplings
 accounts for non-locality / correlations
Equilibrium of a many-body system
with no correlations
spherical symmetric, self-gravitating, collisionless
1 2
  4 G  f ( v  )d 3v
2
f(r,v) = f(E) from Poisson’s equation:
Introduce relative potential Ψ = - Φ + Φ0
Er = -v2/2 + Ψ
and
(vanishes at boundary)
ΔΨ = - 4π G ρ
f(Er) from extremizing BGS entropy, conservation of mass and energy
 exponential energy distribution
extensive, independent
0
v2 / 2  
f ( Er ) 
exp(
)
(2 2 )3/ 2
2
Equilibrium of a many-body system
with correlations
long-range gravitational interactions  non-extensive systems
extremize non-extensive entropy,
conservation of mass and energy
 corresponding distribution
 bifurcation
integration over v 
1 v( ) / 2   

0
( Er )B B
1

2 3/ 2 3/ 2

(2 
)  (  3/
2) 2
2
f


κ>0:
B 
0
( )
(2 2 )3/ 2  3/ 2(  3/ 2)
κ<0:
B 
0
(  5 / 2)
(2 2 )3/ 2  3/ 2 (  1)
 1 
   0 1 
2
  
3/ 2 
( κ < 0 energy cutoff v2/2 ≤ κ σ2 – Ψ )
limit κ =
∞:

  0 exp( /  2 )
Non-extensive density profiles
Combine

or
  4 G 

with
1/(3/ 2 )





1 d  2 d

4 G 



r
1







r 2 dr  dr  0 
 2





d  2 d 
1
 1  d 


1


 
 
2
dr
r dr  3 / 2      dr 
2
 1 
  0 1 
2




2
3/ 2
(Leubner 2005)
4 G  3 / 2   

2
  
2  
 0 
1/  3/ 2  
0
ρ(r) is the radial density distribution of spherically symmetric
hot plasma (κ > 0) or dark matter halo ( κ < 0)
For κ = ∞ we retrieve the conventional isothermal sphere
Non-extensive family of density profiles
Non-extensive family of density profiles ρ± (r) , κ = 3 … 10
Convergence to the BGS solution for κ = ∞
Simulation vs. theory vs. empirical fit
Kronberger, Leubner & van Kampen (2006)
Theory vs. simulation vs. observation
Integrated mass profile
X-ray data for A1413
(Pointecouteau et al. 2005)
Kronberger, Leubner & van Kampen (2006)
Final thoughts
Classical gravity is an already rich theory full of possibilities to explain
astrophysical observations, which have not been all explored yet
Hydrodynamics should be added before comparing to observations using gas
and stars, adding a whole range of possibilities for explanations
A theory like non-extensive statistics should be favoured over empirical
fitting relations for density (and other) profiles
Non-extensive entropy generalization generates a bifurcation
of the isothermal sphere solution into two power-law profiles,
controlled by a single parameter accountin for non-local correlations
with
Κ > 0 for thermodynamic systems
Κ < 0 for self-gravitating systems