text:
# The Mass Distribution in Low Surface Brightness Galaxies

## 1. Introduction

Low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies have been receiving an increasing amount of attention since their discovery, in part because their properties substantially increase the range in galaxy properties over which theories of galaxy structure, formation and evolution can be tested. In particular, the rotation curves of these galaxies provide important clues to the distribution of dark matter.

## 2. The visible mass distribution

The visible mass distribution in LSB galaxies can easily be measured directly by optical and HI imaging. Optical surface photometry (e.g., McGaugh & Bothun 1994, de Blok etal. 1995) has shown that the surface brightness of LSB galaxies is well below the average value of 21.65 $`B`$-mag arcsec<sup>-2</sup> for high surface brightness (HSB) galaxies (Freeman 1970). The shape of the light distribution is remarkably similar between LSB and HSB galaxies. Both types of galaxies are dominated by exponential disks, and both may have significant bulges (Beijersbergen et al. 1999). The disk scale lengths found in LSB galaxies are in the same range as those for HSB galaxies, indicating that LSB galaxies are not dwarf galaxies. At a fixed luminosity, however, LSB galaxies have larger scale lengths than HSB galaxies.

The HI distribution for a sample of LSB galaxies has been mapped by de Blok et al. (1996). In HI, as in the optical, the shapes of the HI distribution seen in LSB galaxies is similar to those seen in HSB galaxies, ranging from filled HI disks, to disks with central holes in HI or ring-like HI distributions. A key difference between HI in LSB and HSB galaxies is that LSB galaxies on average have HI densities that are about a factor of two lower than their HSB counterparts. The HI column densities thus appear related to the surface brightness (see also Swaters et al. 2000a).

## 3. The total mass distribution

A first estimate of the total mass density has been obtained from the Tully-Fisher relationship for LSB galaxies. Zwaan et al. (1995) found that LSB galaxies follow the same Tully-Fisher relationship as HSB galaxies, and concluded from this that LSB galaxies must have lower total mass densities than HSB galaxies.

This result was placed on firmer footing when rotation curves for LSB galaxies became available. De Blok et al. (1996) and de Blok & McGaugh (1996), on the basis of HI observations, found that the rotation curves of LSB galaxies rise more slowly that those of HSB galaxies if the radii are expressed in units of kpc, confirming the Zwaan et al. (1995) result. LSB galaxies therefore appear to be true low density galaxies.

## 4. The dark mass distribution

Although it is clear that LSB galaxies have lower surface brightnesses, lower HI densities and lower total densities than HSB galaxies, this does not automatically imply that these galaxies also have lower dark matter densities. Detailed mass modelling is required to obtain limits on the dark matter distribution.

De Blok & McGaugh (1997) derived mass models for LSB galaxies from HI rotation curves, and found that LSB galaxies have to be dominated by dark matter, both because the HI rotation curve shapes ruled out maximum disks, and because the inferred stellar mass-to-light ratios ($`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$) seem inconsistent with other indicators of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in these galaxies.

More recent high resolution observations of the rotation curves of LSB galaxies (Swaters et al. 2000b) and a reanalysis of the original HI observations (van den Bosch et al. 2000) have indicated that the HI rotation curves were affected by beam smearing. Even though the H$`\alpha `$ rotation curves presented in Swaters et al. (2000) rise somewhat more steeply than the HI rotation curves of the same galaxies, they do confirm the main conclusion by de Blok et al. (1996) that LSB galaxies have low total mass densities. However, the new H$`\alpha `$ rotation curves do change the conclusions derived from the mass modelling.

In Fig. 1 three mass models are shown for the five galaxies for which Swaters et al. (2000) presented H$`\alpha `$ rotation curves. Interestingly, in all galaxies except F568-3, the contribution of the stellar disk can be scaled to explain the inner parts of the rotation curve. The derived values for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ may be high: up to 17 in the $`R`$-band. Most of these are outside the range of what current population synthesis models predict. If these high values of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ are to be explained solely by a stellar population, the stellar content and the processes of star formation in LSB galaxies need to be very different from those in HSB galaxies. Alternatively, these high mass-to-light ratios might indicate the presence of an additional baryonic component associated with the disk, suggested to be in the form of cold molecular gas (e.g., Pfenniger et al. 1994) or white dwarfs (e.g., Ibata et al. 1999). On the other hand, the fact that the stellar disk can be scaled to explain the observed rotation curve may simply reflect the possibility that the luminous and dark mass have a similar distribution within the optical galaxy.

The other extreme for the contribution of the stellar disk to the rotation curve is to assume that its contribution is negligible. From Fig. 1 it is clear that the minimum disk mass models fit the rotation curves equally well as the maximum disk models. In fact, good fits can be obtained with any mass-to-light ratio lower than the maximum disk one, demonstrating that the degeneracy that exists in the mass modeling for HSB galaxies also exists for LSB galaxies.

If the contribution of the stellar disk is close to maximum, then the derived core radii for the dark halos are large, and the central densities low. In the minimum disk case, on the other hand, high central dark matter densities, similar to those found in HSB galaxies, and small core radii are required to explain the observed rotation curves. Because of this large degeneracy it is not possible to determine the distribution of dark matter from rotation curves alone, nor is it possible to determine whether the dark matter density in LSB galaxies scales with luminous or total mass density. If the fractional contribution of the stellar disk to the rotation curve is similar in all galaxies, then the central dark matter density does scale with surface brightness. If, on the other hand, HSB galaxies are close to maximum disk, and LSB close to minimum disk, which is consistent with the values for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ expected from current stellar population synthesis models, then LSB and HSB galaxies may well have identical halos, and hence the dark matter density is not correlated with surface brightness.

Another possible model for the dark matter distribution is shown in the bottom row of Fig. 1. Here, mass models are displayed that are based on halo profiles with a radial distribution as suggested by Navarro et al. (1997), which have a steep slope of $`r^1`$ in the inner parts. This profile has been derived from CDM simulations, and it has been successful in explaining the rotation curves of HSB galaxies. The HI data indicated that these NFW halos are inconsistent with the observed rotation curves (e.g., McGaugh & de Blok 1998), which has been one of the reasons for the recent surge in finding alternatives for CDM.

The NFW mass models in Fig. 1 have been derived for $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=1`$, and have been corrected for adiabatic contraction. These NFW mass models fit the observed rotation curves nearly as well as those based on isothermal halos, except for F568-3. The derived concentration parameters $`c`$ for the NFW fits are consistent with a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology ($`9<c<16`$). This demonstrates that LSB galaxies may have cuspy halos, despite the fact that they appear to be low density objects. There is still controversy on this point. De Blok et al. (this conference) find that a substantial fraction of their new H$`\alpha `$ observations are inconsistent with an NFW halo. Pickering et al. (this conference) on the other hand, find that most of the H$`\alpha `$ rotation curves for their sample of about 70 LSB galaxies can be fitted with a cosmologically meaningful NFW profile. At this point it is unclear whether this apparent dichotomy is the result of observational uncertainties or non-circular motions in the inner parts of the galaxies, or whether the rotation curves of LSB galaxies are in fact inconsistent with cuspy halos.

The fact that the three mass models discussed above, as well as many others, can provide good fits to the observed rotation curves of LSB galaxies, reflects the large degree of freedom that exists in the mass modeling. Based on rotation curves alone, even with the high spatial resolution of H$`\alpha `$ observations, it is difficult to get useful constaints on the dark matter properties. Independent estimates of the mass in the stellar disks, obtained for example from stellar velocity dispersions, are essential.

## References

Beijersbergen, M., de Blok, W.J.G., van der Hulst, J.M. 1999, A&A, 351, 903

de Blok, W.J.G., McGaugh, S.S. 1996, ApJ, 469, L89

de Blok, W. J. G., McGaugh, S. S. 1997, MNRAS, 290, 533

de Blok, W.J.G., van der Hulst, J.M., Bothun, G.D. 1995, MNRAS, 274, 235

de Blok, W.J.G., McGaugh, S.S., van der Hulst, J.M. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 18

Freeman, K.C. 1970, ApJ, 160, 811

Ibata, R.A., Richer, H.B., Gilliland, R.L., Scott, D. 1999, ApJ, 524, L95

McGaugh, S.S., de Blok, W.J.G. 1998, ApJ, 499, 41

McGaugh, S.S., Bothun, G.D. 1994, AJ, 107, 530

Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

Pfenniger, D., Combes, F., Martinet, L. 1994, A&A, 285, 79

Swaters, R.A., Sancisi, R., van Albada, T.S., van der Hulst, J.M., 2000a, submitted

Swaters, R.A., Madore, B.F., Trewhella, M., ApJ, 531, L107

van den Bosch, F.C., Robertson, B., Dalcanton, J., de Blok,W.J.G. 2000, AJ, 119, 1579

Zwaan, M.A., van der Hulst, J.M., de Blok, W.J.G., McGaugh, S.S., 1995, MNRAS, 273, L35


format: text

text:
# HST as a reliable astrometric tool for pulsar astronomy: the cases of the Vela and Geminga pulsars.

## 1 Introduction.

Optical astrometry becomes important when peculiar characteristics of the pulsar emission prevent the use of radio techniques, such as timing or interferometry, to measure accurate pulsar positions. This is the case for the Vela pulsar (PSR B0833-45), whose signal shows irregularities that affect the accuracy of the radio positioning, as well as for Geminga, whose radio signal appears erratic, if at all present (Kassim & Lazio 1999  and references therein).

Thus, accurate positioning of these objects has to rely on the astrometry of their faints optical counterparts.

Over the years, the WFPC2 on HST has been repeatedly used to image both pulsars with the aim to measure their distances through their parallactic displacements. In order to do so, for each target a sequence of at least three observations were to be performed at the times of maximum parallactic elongation, 6 months apart, at the same date, with identical instrument set-ups. Unfortunately, obtaining three time critical observations is not always an easy task. While for the V=25.5 Geminga, it was possible, during cycles 4 and 5, to collect the triplet of observations used by Caraveo et al. (1996) to infer the object’s distance, for the V=23.6 Vela, the cycle 6 observing programme yielded only two images (collected in june 1997 and january 1998).

The whole program has been repeated in cycle 8 with two images available so far (June 1999 and January 2000) and a third one scheduled for July 2000. The availability of two couples of WFPC2 observations of Vela, both obtained at the same period of the year, i.e. with the same parallactic factor, and both spanning a same time interval of 2 years (see Table 1), prompted us to use them to check the consistency of the procedure we have developed to superimpose WFPC2 images to measure proper motions and, eventually, parallaxes of isolated neutron stars. Indeed, two similar couples of WFPC2 observations, covering a time span of 1 year each, are also available for the fainter Geminga (see Tab.1), for which a fourth (unpublished) observation can be added to the triplet used by Caraveo et al. (1996). For both Vela and Geminga we can thus obtain two pure, totally independent, measurements of the proper motion, which can be used both to confirm the reproducibility and consistency of WFPC2 astrometry and to assess the weights of the known systematic errors possibly related to the target’s brightness, the number of reference objects in the field, the instrument jitter, etc.

## 2 Data Analysis.

After performing the standard data reduction (OTF recalibration, exposures association and cosmic ray cleaning), we worked on the accurate frame superposition through a grid of “good” reference stars (see Fig.1 for an outline of the astrometric procedure). The reference stars coordinates were computed by 2-D gaussian fitting of their intensity profiles,yielding a positioning accurate to within 0.01-0.07 pixels.

Using the same procedure, we computed the coordinates of Vela and Geminga with an average accuracy of 0.04 and 0.08 pixels, respectively. In all cases, the overall centering accuracy depends upon several factors: the objects S/N, the local background conditions, the shape of the PSF, the size of the centering area and the telescope jitter. We then corrected the measured coordinates for the effects of the instrument geometrical distortion (Gilmozzi et al. 1995 ) applying the task STSDAS/METRIC. Next step was thus the registration of the reference frames. While for Vela the large number of reference stars (25) in the field (Fig. 2, left) allowed us to follow the traditional astrometric approach (fitting a linear transformation with 2 independent translation factors, 2 scale factors for X and Y and a rotation angle), for Geminga no more than 10 stars were available (Fig. 2, right) and we reduced the number of free parameters by using the HST roll angle to align the frames. The fits on the frame superposition turns out to be very accurate, with a rms of 0.04 and 0.08 pixels for the Vela and Geminga fields, respectively.

In both cases the accuracy of the superposition is determined primarily by the number of reference stars and by their relative distribution, while the algorithm used for the coordinate transformation and the correction for the CCD distortions play a less important role. Table 2 summarizes the overall uncertainty on the target relative position resulting both from the combination of the errors due to the centering procedure and on the frame registration.

## 3 Results.

The Vela and Geminga displacements measured from each couple of images are reported in Table 3. The quoted uncertainties are conservative and result from a standard propagation of the errors affecting objects centroids and frame superpositions. In the case of Geminga, the higher uncertainties are due mainly to the paucity of reference stars, to the faintness of the pulsar optical counterpart and to the higher jitter value of the fouth image. Last but not least, the Geminga errors are diluted over a shorter time span (1 year vs. 2 years for Vela). All this may contribute to the small difference (5 mas/yr) between values of $`\mu _\delta `$, measured for the two couples of images. In any case, the reproducibility of the results, always well within the quoted errors, gives a further demonstration of the reliability of the WFPC2 as an outstanding astrometric tool for faint targets.

We can thus confidently compute a standard average for each couple of measurements. The final results, also reported in Table 3, are bound to become the reference values for the proper motions of these two nearby isolated neutron stars.