Slowly rotating Bose-Einstein Condensate confronted with the rotation curves of 12 dwarf galaxies

E. Kun; L. \'A. Gergely; Z. Keresztes

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Slowly rotating Bose-Einstein Condensate confronted with the rotation curves of 12 dwarf galaxies

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A slowly rotating Bose–Einstein condensate dark matter model fits the rotation curves of 11 of 12 dwarf galaxies with one shared halo radius parameter.

desk verdict The paper's headline particle mass is off by ~17 orders of magnitude from its own Eq. (18); the baryonic modeling is competent, but the central constraint cannot stand. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06489 v1 pith:LCRF6VQH submitted 2019-08-18 astro-ph.GA gr-qc

E. Kun , Z. Keresztes , L. Á. Gergely This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GAgr-qc

keywords darkmatterBose-Einsteincondensaterotationcurvesdwarfgalaxiesgalaxyhalosfinite-sizeparticlemasshalo

topics Dark Matter

open problems Dark Matter

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a dark matter halo made of a slowly rotating Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) can explain the observed rotation curves of 11 out of 12 dwarf galaxies within 1σ. This is one more galaxy than the static, non-rotating BEC model fits, so slow rotation makes a small but real difference. The fits require the halos to have finite size: the density must fall to zero at some radius, which puts an upper bound on the angular velocity, here below about 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶ s⁻¹ for all well-fit galaxies. If the BEC particle has a scattering length near 10⁶ fm, the common halo radius translates into a particle mass between about 1.26 × 10⁻¹⁷ and 3.08 × 10⁻¹⁷ eV/c². The value for a broad audience is that one bosonic particle mass and one scattering length could account for the dark matter content of galaxies of very different sizes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the first-order slowly rotating BEC halo model of Zhang et al. (2018): a rigidly rotating condensate whose tangential velocity squared is given by $v^2_{\mathrm{srBEC}}(r) = \frac{4G\rho_c r^2}{\pi} \left[ (1-\Omega^2)\left(\frac{\sin(\pi r/R)}{\pi r/R} - \cos(\pi r/R)\right) + \frac{\Omega^2}{3}(\pi r/R)^2 \right]$, writing $r$ for the cylindrical radial coordinate and $R$ for the static halo radius, with $\Omega^2 = \omega^2/(2\pi G\rho_c)$. The argument runs on the finite-size cutoff: the halo is only considered physical where its density first reaches zero, and this imposes an upper bound on $\omega$ for each $\rho_c$, turning the fitted $\omega$ values into meaningful statements about halo rotation. The static halo radius $R = \pi/k$, with $k = \sqrt{Gm^3/(a\hbar^2)}$, carries the universality of the particle parameters; this is the quantity that the paper averages over the sample.

What would settle it

Measure the rotation curve of a dwarf galaxy at several radii beyond the fitted finite-halo radius: the srBEC model predicts the rotational velocity drops sharply after the density cutoff, while common cusped halo models predict a much flatter falloff. A single well-measured dwarf galaxy with a flat rotation curve extending well beyond the radius where a finite BEC halo would end would contradict the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the slowly rotating BEC dark matter model, with three free parameters (central density ρ_c, static halo radius R, and angular velocity ω), fits the rotation curves of 11 of the 12 dwarf galaxies in the sample at the 1σ level, while the static BEC model fits only 10. Restricting attention to halos with finite size eliminates fast-rotation solutions whose density stays positive to infinity; the surviving best fits all have ω < 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶ s⁻¹. The fitted static radius R is approximately the same from galaxy to galaxy, with mean 7.51 kpc and standard deviation 2.96 kpc, supporting the idea that R depends only on the particle mass and scattering length. From the relation between R and the particle parameters, the paper infers m ∈ [1.26 × 10⁻¹⁷, 3.08 × 10⁻¹⁷] eV/c² for a ≈ 10⁶ fm, a slightly tighter range than in the static case.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis stands on the assumption that a realistic dark matter halo must have a finite radius where its density first drops to zero, and that faster-rotating halos with positive density extending to infinity are unphysical; the paper does not derive this cutoff from the condensate equations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The srBEC model becomes a viable dark matter candidate for dwarf galaxies, joining the family of core-forming dark matter models that avoid the cusp problem of collisionless cold dark matter.
A single static halo radius R̄ ≈ 7.5 kpc across galaxies implies a single particle mass–scattering length relation, and the ±3 kpc scatter indicates the same boson could describe most dwarfs.
The upper bound ω < 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶ s⁻¹ means the dark matter halos of these dwarf galaxies are slow rotators unless a different physical cutoff is imposed, a prediction that can be checked with kinematic data beyond the rotation curve.
Because the srBEC model fits one more galaxy than the static model, rotation plays a measurable role in matching rotation curves, not just a mathematical extension.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the finite-size cutoff is taken literally, the model predicts that the halo density drops discontinuously to zero at a fitted radius; this could be tested by gravitational lensing or stellar kinematics that probe the dark matter distribution at large radii.
The spread in R across the sample, if not due to fitting noise, could constrain the scattering length a once m is measured independently (for instance from structure formation or direct detection experiments).
The single failing galaxy (UGC 8490) might be accommodated by a more flexible baryonic model or a non-rigid rotation profile, a direct extension of the present analysis.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the headline particle-mass range is internally inconsistent with the paper's own Eq. (18). Plugging a = 10^6 fm and the fitted R values (14.381 kpc and 3.793 kpc) into that equation gives m ≈ 1.1–2.8 eV, not the 1.26e-17 to 3.08e-17 eV/c^2 quoted in the abstract and Section 5. That is not a units problem; it is a factor of 10^17. The mass constraint is the paper's most memorable quantitative result, and it is simply wrong as stated. Second, the baryonic modeling is genuinely careful: Tempel–Tenjes fits to 3.6 μm and R-band photometry, a truncated gas disk, and a clean summary of the srBEC rotation-curve formula. The fit quality is plausible (11/12 within 1σ) and the comparison to the static BEC model is a reasonable exercise.

The new content is the application of the slowly rotating BEC model to these galaxies and the attempt to bound ω via the finite-size halo cutoff. But that cutoff is imposed, not derived. For faster rotation the density oscillates above zero to infinity; the authors declare those solutions unphysical. That might be a defensible modelling choice, but it is an assumption, and the resulting upper limit on ω is contingent on it. There are other soft spots: no parameter uncertainties are given in Table 3, the “within 1σ” criterion is not fully documented, the universality of R is supported only by a scatter of 2.96 kpc around 7.51 kpc, and the improvement over the static model (11 vs 10 galaxies) is marginal. A common-R fit would have been a much stronger test of universality.

The citation pattern is honest: the srBEC model is attributed to Zhang et al. (2018), the baryonic recipes to earlier work, and their own prior paper is correctly cited. No issues there.

This paper is for readers who fit rotation curves with BEC dark matter models or who want a detailed baryonic modeling pipeline. But as it stands, the particle-mass headline is invalid. If it is a typo, the paper needs a corrigendum before it can be used; if not, there is a deeper unit error in the analysis. My recommendation: send it to a referee, but expect major revision. The modeling is worth preserving, but the central constraint cannot be trusted. I would not cite it in this form.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper confronts the slowly rotating Bose-Einstein Condensate (srBEC) dark matter halo model of Zhang et al. (2018) with the rotation curves of 12 dwarf galaxies drawn from the SPARC database, supplementing the 3.6 micron photometry with R-band data from the Westerbork survey. The baryonic contribution is modeled with Tempel-Tenjes bulge/disk luminosity profiles and a truncated exponential gas disk. The free parameters in the combined fit are the baryonic mass-to-light ratios, the srBEC central density rho_c, the static BEC radius R, and the halo angular velocity omega. The authors report that the srBEC model fits 11 of 12 galaxies within their stated 1 sigma criterion, improving on 10 of 12 for the static BEC model, and that the best-fit static radii scatter around R = 7.51 +/- 2.96 kpc. They further claim angular velocities below 2.2e-16 s^-1 for finite-size halos and a BEC particle mass in the range [1.26e-17, 3.08e-17] eV/c^2 for scattering length a = 1e6 fm.

Significance. If established, the paper's claims would strengthen the case for a rotating BEC dark matter model with a near-universal static halo radius and would give a particle-mass constraint tied to rotation-curve data. The work has clear strengths: it uses public, well-documented SPARC rotation curves and photometry, it introduces a more flexible stellar density model than the default exponential disk, it performs explicit chi-square minimization, and it provides a direct comparison against the non-rotating BEC model. The headline quantitative results (omega upper bound, R universality, and particle mass range) are falsifiable and amenable to checking from the tables and equations. However, as detailed below, the internal consistency of the reported particle-mass range, the ad hoc nature of the finite-size cutoff, and the under-documented 1 sigma criterion currently prevent the results from being accepted as stated.

major comments (4)

[Section 5, Eq. (18) and Abstract] The reported particle-mass range is internally inconsistent with Eq. (18). Inserting a = 1e6 fm and the two extreme fitted radii, R = 14.381 kpc and R = 3.793 kpc (from Table 3, UGC 7125 and UGC 7603), into m = 6.73e-2 [a(fm)]^{1/3} [R(kpc)]^{-2/3} eV gives m ≈ 1.14 eV and m ≈ 2.77 eV, respectively. The Abstract and Section 5 instead quote m in [1.26e-17, 3.08e-17] eV/c^2, which differs by roughly 17 orders of magnitude. This is not a units mismatch; it is a direct numerical contradiction. Since the particle mass is a headline quantitative result, the authors must correct either Eq. (18) or the quoted range and abstract.
[Section 3.2, Figs. 3 and 4] The upper bound on the angular velocity and the exclusion of fast-rotating halos rest entirely on the imposed finite-size criterion: the density profile is truncated at its first zero, and solutions that remain positive to infinity are discarded. This criterion is not derived from the Gross-Pitaevskii equation or from any physical boundary condition presented in the paper; it is introduced as a model-selection rule. Because this rule restricts the parameter space during the fit and is what makes the omega upper limit meaningful, a physical justification is needed. If the infinite-halo solutions were admitted, the best-fit parameters, the chi-square values, and the reported omega constraints could all change.
[Section 4, Table 3] The 'within 1 sigma' criterion used to compare the srBEC model (11/12) with the static BEC model (10/12) is not documented. Table 3 lists a '1 sigma' threshold for each galaxy, but the paper gives no definition of this threshold (e.g., chi-square critical value for the relevant number of degrees of freedom), no number of data points, and no parameter uncertainties for the best-fit values of rho_c, R, omega, or the mass-to-light ratios. Without a precise statistical definition, the 11 versus 10 comparison and the claim that the srBEC model is an improvement cannot be evaluated. The authors should specify the degrees of freedom, the construction of the 1 sigma threshold, and provide covariance-based parameter errors.
[Section 5 and Eq. (18)] The claim of universality of the static halo radius R is based on the scatter of best-fit R values (7.51 +/- 2.96 kpc) with no parameter uncertainties and no statistical test of dispersion beyond the reported standard deviation. Moreover, the particle-mass range is obtained by plugging the two extreme fitted R values into Eq. (18), so it is a re-expression of the fitted scatter rather than an independent prediction. Since the fitted R values are free parameters, the width of the derived mass range should not be presented as a new constraint. A formal test, accounting for fit uncertainties, is needed to support the universality claim.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Section 5] The phrase 'less then' should be 'less than' in both the abstract and the summary paragraph.
[Table 3, UGC 5721] The gas truncation radius is listed as R_t = 0 for UGC 5721, which conflicts with the text definition of R_t as the radius outside which the gaseous component is taken into account; please clarify whether zero denotes 'no truncation'.
[Section 4] The fitting description states that weights proportional to error^-2 are used, but it does not specify how the reported chi-square is normalized or how the '1 sigma' thresholds in Table 3 were obtained; this could be clarified with a short formula or a reference.
[References] The reference to Zhang et al. (2018) is listed as 'ArXiv e-prints' without a preprint number; if it has been published, a journal citation would be more useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the srBEC model, baryonic photometry, and rotation-curve fits are externally sourced and independent; the derived particle-mass range is a transparent re-expression of fitted halo radii, not a circular prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external inputs. The srBEC rotation-curve formula is taken from Zhang et al. (2018), an independent external source; the baryonic components are constructed from SPARC 3.6 micron and R-band photometry with Tempel-Tenjes models; the fit then determines rho_c, R, and omega from the observed rotation curves. Eq. (18) is quoted from Bohmer & Harko (2007) and converts the fitted static halo radius R into a particle mass m, with the paper explicitly stating the range is 'based on the best-fits of the srBEC model' -- i.e., a derived parameter constraint, not an independent prediction. The finite-size halo cutoff in Section 3.2 is an imposed physical prior, not fitted from the data, so it does not feed back into the model equation. The claim of universality of R is weakened by being inferred from the scatter of per-galaxy free fits rather than a common-R fit, but that is a statistical limitation, not circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears: prior work by the same authors is cited only as background and is not used to justify the central result. One non-circular correctness concern: the quoted range m in [1.26e-17, 3.08e-17] eV/c^2 appears numerically inconsistent with Eq. (18) as written, since inserting a = 10^6 fm and the Table 3 extremes R = 3.793 and 14.381 kpc gives m ~ 1.1-2.8 eV; this is an arithmetic or unit issue, not a circularity issue.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the srBEC model taken from Zhang et al. (2018), a rigid-rotation assumption, a finite-size cutoff, and a baryonic model with fitted M/L ratios, halo parameters, and gas disk parameters. The quoted particle mass and angular velocity ranges are derived directly from fitted values, so they inherit all modeling assumptions.

free parameters (6)

Disk mass-to-light ratio (Upsilon_d) = 0.10 to 2.63 in solar units (Table 3)
Normalizes the stellar disk mass; fitted freely to rotation curves, directly affects the baryonic contribution.
Bulge mass-to-light ratio (Upsilon_b) = 0.09 to 4.12 where applicable (Table 3)
Normalizes the stellar bulge mass for six galaxies with a two-component stellar model.
Central density of srBEC halo (rho_c) = 0.105 to 2.692 x 10^-24 g/cm^3 (Table 3)
Core density of the dark matter halo; fitted to each rotation curve.
Static BEC halo radius (R) = 3.793 to 14.381 kpc (Table 3)
Halo size parameter, expected to be universal but fitted independently for each galaxy; feeds directly into the particle mass range.
Angular velocity of srBEC halo (omega) = 0.063 to 2.193 x 10^-16 1/s (Table 3)
Rotation rate of the halo; fitted and then quoted as the angular velocity constraint.
Gas disk parameters (Sigma_0, R_d, R_t) = Table 3, columns 2-4
Central surface density, scale length, and truncation radius of the truncated exponential gas disk; fitted to SPARC gas velocity data and used in Eq. (9)-(11).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Dark matter forms a non-relativistic Newtonian BEC described by the Gross-Pitaevskii equation with barotropic equation of state (Böhmer and Harko 2007).
Basis of the srBEC model; taken from cited work, not derived in this paper.
domain assumption The srBEC halo rotates rigidly with constant angular velocity omega (Zhang et al. 2018).
Used in Eqs. (12)-(16); a single omega per galaxy.
domain assumption The first-order perturbative expression for v_srBEC, Eqs. (15)-(16), is valid for the fitted parameter range.
The paper corrects Eq. (103) of Zhang et al. (2018) but does not re-derive the perturbation series or estimate higher-order terms.
ad hoc to paper The halo density profile is cut off at the first zero to give finite size; faster rotators with positive density to infinity are excluded.
Section 3.2 uses this cutoff to impose the upper limit on omega during fitting.
domain assumption 3.6 micron surface brightness traces stellar mass with a constant M/L ratio (taken as 0.5 in Section 2.3, but left free in the final fits).
Used to compare NIR and R-band mass densities; the final rotation curve fits allow M/L to vary.
domain assumption The galaxy is axisymmetric and the observed rotation curve equals the circular velocity in the equatorial plane.
Used in Eqs. (2)-(4) and (17); standard assumption not tested here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Slowly rotating Bose-Einstein Condensate confronted with the rotation curves of 12 dwarf galaxies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LCRF6VQH

@misc{pith2026190806489,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Slowly rotating Bose-Einstein Condensate confronted with the rotation curves of 12 dwarf galaxies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LCRF6VQH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06489}
}

abstract

We assemble a database of 12 dwarf galaxies, for which optical (R-band) and near-infrared ($3.6\mu m$) surface brightness density together with spectroscopic rotation curve data are available, in order to test the slowly rotating Bose-Einstein Condensate (srBEC) dark matter model. We aim to establish the angular velocity range compatible with observations, bounded from above by the requirement of finite size halos, to check the modelfits with the dataset, and the universality of the BEC halo parameter $\mathcal{R}$. We construct the spatial luminosity density of the stellar component of the dwarf galaxies based on their $3.6\mu m$ and R-band surface brightness profiles, assuming an axisymmetric baryonic mass distribution. We build up the gaseous component by employing a truncated disk model. We fit a baryonic plus dark matter combined model, parametrized by the M/L ratios of the baryonic components and parameters of the srBEC (the central density $\rho_c$, size of the static BEC halo $\mathcal{R}$, angular velocity $\omega$) to the rotation curves. The $3.6\mu m$ surface brightness of 6 galaxies indicates the presence of a bulge and a disk component. The shape of the $3.6\mu m$ and R-band spatial mass density profiles being similar is consistent with the stellar mass of the galaxies emerging wavelength-independent. The srBEC model fits the rotation curve of 11 galaxies out of 12 within $1\sigma$ significance level, with the average of $\mathcal{R}$ as 7.51 kpc and standard deviation of 2.96 kpc. This represents an improvement over the static BEC modelfit. For the well-fitting 11 galaxies the angular velocities allowing for a finite size srBEC halo are $<2.2\times 10^{-16}$ 1/s. For a scattering length of the BEC particle of $a\approx 10^6$ fm, the mass of the BEC particle is slightly better constrained than in the static case as $m\in[1.26\times10^{-17}\div3.08\times10^{-17}]$ eV/c$^2$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06489 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Exponential disk model (purple dashed line) from the SPARC database and Tempel–Tenjes disk model in the present paper, or bulge+disk model (black continuous line) of the 12 dwarf galaxies. The 3.6µm SPARC surface brightness data are presented by black dots with error-bars. The ⋆ sign marks galaxies with two-component stellar model (bulge+disk). 2.4. Gaseous component Observations of galaxies show that for a large fr… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Mass density models of the 12 galaxies at 3.6µm (red line) and in R-band (black line). The coordinate r is measured in the galactic plane (where a = r, because z = 0). The ⋆ sign marks galaxies with two-component stellar model (bulge + disk). 3. Dark matter model 3.1. The slowly rotating BEC-type dark matter component The equatorial radius of the srBEC DM halo is given by Zhang et al. (2018) R0 π 2 = π k [PITH_… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Density of the srBEC halo (coloured surface), as a function of the distance measured from the rotation axis of the galaxy in its equatorial plane (R, on the x-axis), and of the angular velocity (ω, on the y-axis). The ρ = 0 level surface is also indicated. Model parameters are: the size of the BEC halo in the static limit R = 10 kpc, the central density is ρc = 1 × 10−24g/cm3 (left panel), ρc = 2 × 10−24g/cm3 (middl… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Density profile of the srBEC model (coloured surface), as a function of the distance measured from the rotation axis of the galaxy in its equatorial plane (R, on the x-axis), and of the angular velocity (ω, on the y-axis). For comparison we also indicate the ρ = 0 leve…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Best-fit rotational curves of the dwarf galaxy sample. The dots with error-bars denote the observed rotational velocity curves. The fitted model, composed by a baryonic and a srBEC component is represented by the black curve. The red short-dashed curve draws the contri…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[1]

Bell, E. F. & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212

2001
[2]

F., McIntosh, D

Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D. 2003, ApJS, 149, 289

2003
[3]

& Merriﬁeld, M

Binney, J. & Merriﬁeld, M. 1998, Galactic Astronomy

work page 1998
[4]

& Tremaine, S

Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic dynamics Böhmer, C. G. & Harko, T. 2007, JCAP , 6, 025

work page 1987
[5]

M., & Sullivan, III, W

Bosma, A., van der Hulst, J. M., & Sullivan, III, W. T. 1977, A& A, 57, 373

work page 1977
[6]

2016, Phys

Chudaykin, A., Gorbunov, D., & Tkachev, I. 2016, Phys. Rev. D ., 94, 023528

work page 2016
[7]

Dwornik, M., Keresztes, Z., & Gergely, L. Á. 2015, in Thirtee nth Marcel Grossmann Meeting: On Recent Developments in Theoretical a nd Experi- mental General Relativity, Astrophysics and Relativistic Field Theories, ed. K. Rosquist, 1279–1281

work page 2015
[8]

2012, AJ, 143, 139

Eskew, M., Zaritsky, D., & Meidt, S. 2012, AJ, 143, 139

work page 2012

Show all 25 references

[9]

Gunn, J. E. & Gott, III, J. R. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1

1972
[10]

2018, Symmetry , 10, 520

Kun, E., Keresztes, Z., Das, S., & Gergely, L. 2018, Symmetry , 10, 520

2018
[11]

Kun, E., Keresztes, Z., Simkó, A., Sz˝ ucs, G., & Gergely, L. Á. 2017, A&A, 608, A42

2017
[12]

S., & Schombert, J

Lelli, F., McGaugh, S. S., & Schombert, J. M. 2016, AJ, 152, 15 7

2016
[13]

McGaugh, S. S. & Schombert, J. M. 2014, AJ, 148, 77

2014
[14]

F., Frenk, C

Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, AJ, 462, 56 3 Planck Collaboration, Ade, P . A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016 , A&A, 594, A13 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints

1996
[15]

2004, ApJ, 617, 1059

Rhee, G., V alenzuela, O., Klypin, A., Holtzman, J., & Moorth y, B. 2004, ApJ, 617, 1059

2004
[16]

C., Marra, V ., del Popolo, A., & Davari, Z

Rodrigues, D. C., Marra, V ., del Popolo, A., & Davari, Z. 2018 , Nature Astron- omy, 2, 668

2018
[17]

C., Thonnard, N., & Ford, Jr., W

Rubin, V . C., Thonnard, N., & Ford, Jr., W. K. 1978, ApJL, 225, L107

1978
[18]

Swaters, R. A. 1999, PhD thesis, , Rijksuniversiteit Gronin gen, (1999)

1999
[19]

Swaters, R. A. & Balcells, M. 2002, A&A, 390, 863

2002
[20]

A., Sancisi, R., van Albada, T

Swaters, R. A., Sancisi, R., van Albada, T. S., & van der Hulst, J. M. 2009, A&A, 493, 871

2009
[21]

& Tenjes, P

Tamm, A. & Tenjes, P . 2005, A&A, 433, 31

2005
[22]

& Tenjes, P

Tempel, E. & Tenjes, P . 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1269 V erheijen, M. A. W. 2001, ApJ, 563, 694

2006
[23]

2016, MNRAS, 463, 557

Wegg, C., Gerhard, O., & Portail, M. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 557

2016
[24]

H., Harko, T., Liang, S.-D., & Leung, C

Zhang, X., Chan, M. H., Harko, T., Liang, S.-D., & Leung, C. S. 2018, ArXiv e-prints

2018
[25]

1937, ApJ, 86, 217 Article number, page 9 of 9

Zwicky, F. 1937, ApJ, 86, 217 Article number, page 9 of 9

1937

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bell, E. F. & de Jong, R. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212

2001

[2] [2]

F., McIntosh, D

Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., & Weinberg, M. D. 2003, ApJS, 149, 289

2003

[3] [3]

& Merriﬁeld, M

Binney, J. & Merriﬁeld, M. 1998, Galactic Astronomy

work page 1998

[4] [4]

& Tremaine, S

Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic dynamics Böhmer, C. G. & Harko, T. 2007, JCAP , 6, 025

work page 1987

[5] [5]

M., & Sullivan, III, W

Bosma, A., van der Hulst, J. M., & Sullivan, III, W. T. 1977, A& A, 57, 373

work page 1977

[6] [6]

2016, Phys

Chudaykin, A., Gorbunov, D., & Tkachev, I. 2016, Phys. Rev. D ., 94, 023528

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Dwornik, M., Keresztes, Z., & Gergely, L. Á. 2015, in Thirtee nth Marcel Grossmann Meeting: On Recent Developments in Theoretical a nd Experi- mental General Relativity, Astrophysics and Relativistic Field Theories, ed. K. Rosquist, 1279–1281

work page 2015

[8] [8]

2012, AJ, 143, 139

Eskew, M., Zaritsky, D., & Meidt, S. 2012, AJ, 143, 139

work page 2012