--- abstract: 'Modified gravity models often contain modes that couple to normal matter and propagate with slightly less than the speed of light. High-energy cosmic rays then lose energy due to Cherenkov radiation, which constrains such models. This is also true for some <span>MOND</span> (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) models. However, these constraints are difficult to make precise because <span>MOND</span> is inherently non-linear and because the results may depend on the specific high-acceleration behavior of these models, i.e. the behavior outside the <span>MOND</span> regime. Recently, various hybrid <span>MOND</span> dark matter models were proposed, where cold dark matter (<span>CDM</span>) phenomenology on cosmological scales and <span>MOND</span> phenomenology on galactic scales share a common origin. Such models typically contain a mode that is directly coupled to matter (for <span>MOND</span>), but with non-relativistic sound speed (for <span>CDM</span>). Thus, even non-relativistic objects like stars can emit gravitational Cherenkov radiation. We calculate a lower bound on the associated energy loss. We use a controlled approximation that depends only on the <span>MOND</span> regime of these models. We apply our results to three concrete models: For the original superfluid dark matter model (<span>SFDM</span>), we rule out a part of the parameter space, including the most commonly used parameters. For two-field <span>SFDM</span>, we find no constraint since the matter coupling of the relevant mode is suppressed by mixing. For the recently-proposed model by Skordis and Złośnik, we find no constraint since the matter coupling is suppressed in non-static situations.' author: - 'Tobias Mistele[^1]' bibliography: - 'cherenkov.bib' title: A novel Cherenkov radiation constraint for hybrid MOND dark matter models --- \[sec:cherenkov\] Introduction ============ A simple explanation for the problem of missing non-baryonic mass on cosmological scales is the existence of a collisional fluid. On galactic scales, a simple explanation is a modified force law, specifically Modified Newtonian Dynamics (<span>MOND</span>) @Milgrom1983a [@Milgrom1983b; @Milgrom1983c; @Bekenstein1984]. A natural idea is to combine the phenomenology of a collisionless fluid on cosmological scales and that of <span>MOND</span> on galactic scales in a single model. Recently, various such models were proposed. We refer to them as hybrid MOND dark matter models. All such hybrid models produce both MOND-like and CDM-like phenomena. Some hybrid models simply introduce two independent sectors, one of which provides a collisionless fluid on cosmological scales, while the other provides a MOND-like force on galactic scales. Examples are the $\nu$HDM model @Angus2009 [@Haslbauer2020] or the two-field model from Ref. @Khoury2015. In such models, the MOND and CDM phenomena exist independently of each other. In contrast, other models seek a common origin for the cosmological and galactic phenomena. Examples are the original superfluid dark matter (SFDM) model @Berezhiani2015 [@Berezhiani2018] and the recently-proposed model by Skordis and Złośnik (<span>SZ</span> model) @Skordis2020 [@Skordis2021]. Such models with a common origin for the cosmological and galactic phenomena typically contain a component that plays a double role. That is, a component that is involved both in providing a significant energy density (for the CDM phenomenology) and in providing a modified force law (for the MOND phenomenology). Such a double role may lead to tensions between these two different roles. This happens for example in SFDM @Mistele2020. This is why Ref. @Mistele2020 proposed two-field SFDM, which weakens the link between the cosmological and galactic phenomena. Similarly, for the SZ model, a MOND-like force on galactic scales tends to induce a too large pressure of the DM-like fluid in the early universe if one is not careful @Skordis2020. Here, we will discuss another consequence of components that play such a double role, namely a novel type of Cherenkov radiation. Modified gravity theories often contain a massless mode that is directly coupled to matter in order to provide a modified force law. If this massless mode propagates with a speed $c_s$ that is smaller than the speed of light, matter can have a velocity $V$ that is larger than $c_s$. In this case, matter loses energy by emitting radiation in the form of the massless modified gravity mode. This radiation is called Cherenkov radiation. In general, Cherenkov radiation is emitted whenever a massless mode is directly coupled to matter and the matter velocity $V$ is larger than $c_s$. For brevity, we will refer to the speed $c_s$ as the speed of sound, but it is not in general necessary that there is a hydrodynamical description. In particle physics language, Cherenkov radiation corresponds to the Feynman diagram shown in Fig. \[fig:cherenkov-feynman\]. A direct coupling to matter implies that the vertex in this Feynman diagram exists. When $V$ is larger than $c_s$, the external legs can go on-shell. For smaller $V$, this process is kinematically forbidden by energy-momentum conservation. ![ The Feynman diagram for Cherenkov radiation. The straight lines denote matter, the wiggly line denotes the radiation mode, e.g. a massless modified gravity mode. The incoming matter particle has four-momentum $P$ and radiates away energy and momentum $K$. This process is kinematically allowed only if the matter particle moves faster than the massless mode propagates. <span data-label="fig:cherenkov-feynman"></span>](./cherenkov-feynman-diagram/diagram.pdf){width=".4\textwidth"} Usually, gravitational Cherenkov radiation is studied for highly relativistic matter @Caves1980 [@Moore2001; @Elliott2005; @Bruneton2007b; @Milgrom2011; @Chesler2017]. Indeed, if the sound speed is close to the speed of light, $c_s \approx 1$, only relativistic objects can emit Cherenkov radiation, because only relativistic objects can satisfy $V > c_s$. But if $c_s$ is much smaller than the speed of light, $c_s \ll 1$, even non-relativistic matter can emit Cherenkov radiation. An example of this phenomenon is dynamical friction in collisional fluids @Ostriker1999 [@Berezhiani2019b; @Berezhiani2020]: If such a fluid constitutes dark matter in galaxies, then stars or globular clusters may experience dynamical friction. That is, if normal matter moves faster than the dark matter sound speed, it loses energy through Cherenkov radiation, i.e. it radiates away sound waves.[^2] The timescale on which a non-relativistic object loses a significant fraction of its energy due to this dynamical friction is @Ostriker1999 $$\begin{aligned} \tau_{\mathrm{df}} = |\dot{E}|/E_{\mathrm{kin}} = \frac{V^3}{M G^2 \rho_{\mathrm{DM}}} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we neglected $\mathcal{O}(1)$ factors, $E_{\mathrm{kin}}$ is the object's kinetic energy, $M$ is its mass, and $\rho_{\mathrm{DM}}$ is the dark matter density. This timescale is dynamically relevant for heavy objects since $\tau_{\mathrm{df}} \propto 1/M$. For example, globular clusters in the Fornax dwarf spheroidal may have a timescale $\tau_{\mathrm{df}}$ smaller than the age of the Universe @Tremaine1976 [@Sanchez-Salcedo2006]. In comparison, individual stars have much smaller masses so that the timescale $\tau_{\mathrm{df}}$ is much larger and not phenomenologically relevant. For example, $\tau_{\mathrm{df}} \sim 10^{20}\,\mathrm{yr}$ for the Sun in a dark matter fluid with $\rho_{\mathrm{DM}} = 0.3\,\mathrm{GeV}/\mathrm{cm}^3$. A standard dark matter fluid is not directly coupled to matter, only indirectly through Newtonian gravity. This is why $\tau_{\mathrm{df}}$ scales as $1/G^2$. If, instead, matter were directly gravitationally coupled to the dark matter fluid, this timescale would scale as $1/G$. This is typical for gravitational Cherenkov radiation in modified gravity models. In this case, the relevant timescale may be much shorter so that even comparably light objects can lose energy on a dynamically relevant timescale. Hybrid MOND-dark-matter models with a common origin for MOND and CDM phenomena typically allow for Cherenkov radiation. The reason is as follows. These models have a massless mode that couples to normal matter, namely the mode that carries the MOND-like force. If there is a common origin of this MOND-like force and the cosmological DM-like fluid, this massless mode naturally propagates with a non-relativistic speed. A non-relativistic propagation speed is natural because the dark matter fluid must be pressureless on cosmological scales. For example, in SFDM, the collisionless fluid on cosmological scales is a non-relativistic superfluid, which also forms a cored halo around galaxies. The MOND-like force is carried by the phonons of this superfluid. Thus, these phonons are non-relativistic and directly coupled to normal matter. This allows for Cherenkov radiation. Since the sound speed is non-relativistic, this allows Cherenkov radiation even from non-relativistic objects. That is, even stars may lose energy through Cherenkov radiation, i.e. to phonons. This is a novel type of Cherenkov radiation. It comes from a direct coupling to matter as in standard modified gravity models. But it also allows for non-relativistic objects to emit Cherenkov radiation like dynamical friction in collisional fluids. We can constrain models allowing for this type of Cherenkov radiation by requiring that stars do not lose a significant amount of their energy on galactic timescales. Specifically, either the sound speed $c_s$ must be large enough so that most stars are subsonic and Cherenkov radiation is avoided kinematically. Or the timescale $\tau_E$ on which stars lose a significant amount of energy due to Cherenkov radiation must be much larger than galactic timescales. We will show that the timescale $\tau_E$ scales as $$\begin{aligned} \tau_E \propto \frac{1}{c_s^2 \, g_m^2 G} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_s$ is the non-relativistic sound speed of the massless mode and $g_m \sqrt{G}$ its coupling to matter. Thus, to avoid Cherenkov radiation by having a large energy loss timescale $\tau_E$ one can make either $c_s$ or $g_m$ small. This is different from the relativistic limit considered in standard Cherenkov radiation constraints, where $\tau_E$ cannot be made large by making $c_s$ small. Our results for $\tau_E$ will be a conservative lower bound, because we assume strict cuts in the phase space integrals in our calculation. We do this for two reasons. First, to avoid technical difficulties due to the non-linearities inherent in any MOND model. Second, to rely only on the MOND regime of each model, i.e. to be independent of the behavior for accelerations larger than the MOND acceleration scale $a_0$. This makes our calculation simple and robust. For example, we do not need to consider potential higher-derivative terms @Babichev2011 which may become important in the solar system, as has been considered in both SFDM and the SZ model @Berezhiani2018 [@Skordis2020]. These strict cuts also imply that there is no significant recoil. In a quasi-particle picture: Any single emission carries very little energy and momentum. A macroscopic change happens only after a large number of these soft emissions. In contrast, for standard gravitational Cherenkov radiation, the emissions are not soft. Supersonic objects lose a significant amount of energy and momentum with each emission, i.e. recoil is important @Chesler2017. We first demonstrate the general idea and calculations behind our Cherenkov constraints for a simple prototype model in Sec. \[sec:general\]. In Secs. \[sec:standardsfdm\], \[sec:twofieldsfdm\], and \[sec:relmond\] we apply these results, with appropriate modifications, to the original SFDM model, two-field SFDM, and the SZ model, respectively. For the original SFDM model, we can rule out a MOND limit in the Milky Way for a certain part of the parameter space. In contrast, two-field SFDM and the SZ model evade our constraints due to two different mechanisms that we explain in detail. After a short discussion in Sec. \[sec:discussion\], we summarize in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\]. The present paper supplements and extends the shorter work Ref. @Mistele2021. We employ units with $ c = \hbar = 1 $ and the metric signature $ (+, -, -, -) $, unless otherwise stated. Small Greek indices run from $ 0 $ to $ 3 $ and denote spacetime dimensions. Cherenkov radiation in a prototype hybrid model {#sec:general} =============================================== In this section, we will introduce the general idea behind our Cherenkov radiation constraint using a prototype model. Specifically, we consider a prototype model for a massless mode with non-relativistic sound speed $c_s \ll 1$ that directly couples to matter with a standard gravitational coupling constant. As discussed above, this is a natural setup for hybrid MOND dark matter models with a common origin for the cosmological and galactic scale phenomena. The three models we explicitly discuss below in Secs. \[sec:standardsfdm\], \[sec:twofieldsfdm\], and \[sec:relmond\] are not exactly of the form discussed here. However, we prefer to keep the discussion simple for now and later adapt our results as needed. We consider a matter object, for example a star, with mass $M$ and velocity $V$ at a distance ${R_p}$ from the center of its host galaxy. We denote the host galaxy's baryonic mass inside a radius ${R_p}$ by $M_{\mathrm{gal}}$. In general, we use a capital $R$ for distances to the center of the host galaxy and a lower case $r$ for distances to the matter object, also referred to as the perturber. Our main result will be an estimate for the timescale $\tau_E$ on which non-relativistic objects like stars lose a significant fraction of their energy, if their velocity $V$ is larger than a critical velocity $V_{\mathrm{crit}} = \mathcal{O}(\bar{c})$, i.e. if they are supersonic, $$\begin{aligned} \tau_E = \frac{2\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{yr}}{f_a f_p^2 \, {g_m}^2} \cdot \left(\frac{V/\bar{c}}{2}\right)^2 \cdot \left(\frac{a_0}{a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}}\right) \cdot \left(\frac{V}{200\,\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}}\right) \cdot \left(\frac{1.2 \cdot 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}^2}{a_0}\right) \,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\bar{c}$ sets the scale of the sound speed $c_s$, ${g_m}$ is a model-dependent coupling constant, $a_0$ is the MOND acceleration scale, and $a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}$ is the Newtonian acceleration due to baryons in the host galaxy at the position of the matter object. The factor $f_a$ depends on the relative orientation of $\vec{V}$ and the MOND force of the background galaxy. The factor $f_p$ is determined by the radius where the perturber's field becomes smaller than the galaxy's background field. Both $f_a$ and $f_p$ are typically of order $1$. For a standard gravitational coupling, ${g_m}$ is also of order $1$. Details are explained below. Thus, stars with $V > V_{\mathrm{crit}}$ may lose a significant fraction of their energy on galactic timescales. This constrains hybrid MOND-DM models. Such models either need a sound speed large enough such that most stars are subsonic, or a timescale $\tau_E$ that is much larger than galactic timescales. Prototype Lagrangian -------------------- Consider a real scalar field $\varphi$ that satisfies a MOND-type equation on galactic scales in the static limit. Then, roughly, $\varphi \propto \sqrt{G M_{\mathrm{gal}} a_0} \ln(R)$. Typically, the Lagrangian for perturbations $\delta$ around a galaxy's static background field $\varphi_0$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:prototype} \mathcal{L} = \frac12 \frac{1}{\bar{c}^2} (\partial_t \delta)^2 - \frac12 \left( (\vec{\nabla} \delta)^2 + (\hat{a} \vec{\nabla} \delta)^2 \right) - \frac{{g_m}}{\sqrt{2} M_{\mathrm{Pl}}} \delta \, \delta_b \,,\end{aligned}$$ after an appropriate definition of $\delta$. We will discuss concrete examples of this later. Here, ${g_m}$ and $\bar{c}$ are parameters that may depend on the background field $\varphi_0$, and $\delta_b$ is a perturbation of the baryonic density $\rho_b$. Further, $\hat{a}$ is a unit vector that points into the direction of the background $\vec{\nabla} \varphi_0$, i.e. into the direction of the background MOND force or in the opposite direction, depending on the signs. The dispersion relation is $\omega = c_s |\vec{k}|$ with the sound speed $$\begin{aligned} c_s^2 = \bar{c}^2(1 + \gamma^2) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma$ is the cosine of the angle between the perturbation's wavevector $\vec{k}$ and $\hat{a}$. A prototypical MOND Lagrangian is @Bekenstein1984 [@Bruneton2007b] $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{L} = \frac{2 M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{3a_0} \sqrt{|K_\varphi|} K_\varphi - \rho_b \, \varphi \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $K_\varphi = \nabla_\alpha \varphi \nabla^\alpha \varphi$ is a standard kinetic term and $a_0$ is the MOND acceleration scale. After rescaling, the second-order Lagrangian for perturbations is that of Eq. with $$\begin{aligned} \bar{c} = 1 \,, \quad {g_m}= \sqrt{\frac{a_0}{|\vec{\nabla} \varphi_0|}} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the sound speed is relativistic (even superluminal @Bruneton2007 [@Bruneton2007b; @Babichev2008]) and ${g_m}$ is roughly of order 1 on galactic scales since $|\vec{\nabla} \varphi_0|$ is roughly of order $a_0$ there. In many hybrid MOND-DM models, we expect this to be still qualitatively true, except that $\bar{c}$ gives a non-relativistic sound speed $$\begin{aligned} \bar{c} \ll 1 \,.\end{aligned}$$ For example, in standard SFDM, $\delta$ corresponds to the phonons of a non-relativistic superfluid. These have a non-relativistic sound speed so that $\bar{c} \ll 1$. We will discuss this and other examples in more detail below. As already mentioned above, the models we discuss below do not exactly have the form of our prototype Lagrangian. For example, standard SFDM has an additional term that mixes spatial and time derivatives of $\delta$. Two-field SFDM has a more complicated coupling $g_m$ and no $\hat{a}$ term for the relevant mode. The SZ model also has a more complicated coupling $g_m$. We will discuss how the calculation needs to be adjusted in each case in Secs. \[sec:standardsfdm\], \[sec:twofieldsfdm\], and \[sec:relmond\], respectively. Nevertheless, the general considerations for our prototype Lagrangian give a useful qualitative picture. Cherenkov radiation {#sec:general:cherenkov} ------------------- Consider a non-relativistic perturber, e.g. a star, that moves in a galaxy. Following Refs. @Berezhiani2019b [@Berezhiani2020], we model the perturber as a real scalar field $\chi$ with mass $M$. In the non-relativistic limit, this scalar field's energy density is $$\begin{aligned} \rho_\chi \approx \frac12 (\dot{\chi}^2 + M^2 \chi^2) \approx M^2 \chi^2 \,.\end{aligned}$$ We take this as the baryon density's perturbation $\delta_b$ in our prototype Lagrangian from Eq. . We can then calculate the perturber's energy loss rate $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:dotEgeneral} \dot{E} = - \int \omega d\Gamma \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $d\Gamma$ is the differential decay rate and $\omega = c_s |\vec{k}|$ is the energy of the quasi-particle that is radiated away. It is important to impose cutoffs in the integral in Eq. that reflect the regime in which our prototype Lagrangian is valid. For now, we keep the calculation general and assume cutoffs $k_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $k_{\mathrm{max}}$ with $k_{\mathrm{min}} < k_{\mathrm{max}}$ in the momentum integral. We will discuss the numerical values of these cutoffs below. We find (see Appendix \[sec:Edotcalculation\]), $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:dotE} |\dot{E}| = f_a \frac{\bar{c}^2}{16 \pi V} \frac{{g_m}^2 M^2}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2} (k_{\mathrm{max}}^2 - k_{\mathrm{min}}^2) \cdot \Theta(V - V_{\mathrm{crit}})\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $f_a$ is a factor that depends on the direction of $\hat{a}$ relative to $\vec{V}$. The critical velocity $V_{\mathrm{crit}}$ also depends on the direction of $\vec{V}$ and denotes the velocity below which no Cherenkov radiation is emitted. For $\vec{V} \parallel \hat{a}$: $$\begin{aligned} f^\parallel_a &= \frac{1}{1 - (\bar{c}/V)^2}\,,\\ V^\parallel_{\mathrm{crit}} &= \sqrt{2} \bar{c}\,.\end{aligned}$$ And for $\vec{V} \perp \hat{a}$: $$\begin{aligned} f^\perp_a &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + (\bar{c}/V)^2}}\,,\\ V^\perp_{\mathrm{crit}} &= \bar{c}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The factor $f_a$ does not change the order of magnitude of the energy loss. Numerically, for $V > V_{\mathrm{crit}}$, it varies between $1$ and $2$ for $\vec{V} \parallel \hat{a}$ and between $1$ and $1/\sqrt{2}$ for $\vec{V} \perp \hat{a}$. Note that $\dot{E}$ scales as $\bar{c}^2$. This is because the correct normalization for using the standard QFT formalism with the standard Feynman rules is not the one shown in Eq. . Instead, the correct normalization is to scale the $1/\bar{c}^2$ in front of the time derivatives away @Berezhiani2019b. This scaling makes the coupling proportional to $\bar{c}$ and the amplitude squared proportional to $\bar{c}^2$. The critical velocity $V_{\mathrm{crit}}$ reflects the fact that Cherenkov radiation is allowed only for supersonic perturbers, $V > c_s$. Here, the sound speed $c_s$ depends on the direction of the wave vector $\vec{k}$ of the perturbation relative to that of the background field $\hat{a}$, i.e. $c_s = \bar{c} \sqrt{1 + \gamma^2}$ depends on $\gamma$. This is why $f_a$ and $V_{\mathrm{crit}}$ depend on the relative orientation of $\vec{V}$ and $\hat{a}$. Without the $\hat{a}$-term in our prototype Lagrangian, this would just be $f_a = 1$ and $V_{\mathrm{crit}} = \bar{c}$, independently of the direction of $\vec{V}$. Our result for the energy loss $|\dot{E}|$ scales differently from what Refs. @Caves1980 [@Moore2001; @Elliott2005; @Kimura2012] have found for standard gravitational Cherenkov radiation. This is because these consider the limit of a relativistic perturber and sound speed, $V \approx 1$ and $c_s \approx 1$, while we consider a non-relativistic perturber and sound speed, $V \ll 1$ and $c_s \ll 1$. The timescale on which perturbers like stars lose a significant amount of their energy $E$ is roughly $E/|\dot{E}|$. Thus, assuming $V > V_{\mathrm{crit}}$, we define the timescale $\tau_E$ as $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:taukin1} \tau_E \equiv \frac{E_{\mathrm{kin}}}{|\dot{E}|} \equiv \frac{\frac12 M V^2}{|\dot{E}|} = \frac{8 \pi V^3 M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}{f_a \bar{c}^2 {g_m}^2 M k_{\mathrm{max}}^2} \, \frac{1}{1 - (k_{\mathrm{min}}/k_{\mathrm{max}})^2} \,.\end{aligned}$$ As alluded to in the introduction, this scales as $1/G \propto M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2$, which is different from the standard dynamical friction timescale that scales as $1/G^2 \propto M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^4$ @Chandrasekhar1943 [@Ostriker1999; @Berezhiani2019b]. Stars have both kinetic and potential energy. For simplicity, our definition of $\tau_E$ includes only the kinetic energy. Including the gravitational energy does not change the order of magnitude. Indeed, we will now discuss a concrete example to see that $\tau_E$ is a useful quantity. For a star in a galaxy, we have $$\begin{aligned} \partial_t \left(E_{\mathrm{kin}} + E_{\mathrm{grav}} \right) = \dot{E} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\dot{E}$ is the energy loss through Cherenkov radiation, and $E_{\mathrm{grav}}$ is the gravitational energy. If $E_{\mathrm{grav}}$ depends only on the star's position ${R_p}$ in the galaxy, we have $$\begin{aligned} \partial_t \left( \frac12 M V^2 \right) + M {\dot{R}_p}\, a_{\mathrm{grav}} = \dot{E} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $a_{\mathrm{grav}}$ is the gravitational acceleration produced by the host galaxy at the star's position. In the MOND-dominated part of the galaxy with a flat rotation curve, we have $a_{\mathrm{grav}} = \sqrt{G M_{\mathrm{gal}} a_0}/{R_p}$. If we further assume that the star is always approximately on a circular orbit, we have $V^2 = \sqrt{G M_{\mathrm{gal}} a_0}$, which is constant. This gives $$\begin{aligned} \frac{{\dot{R}_p}}{{R_p}} = - \frac{1}{2 \tau_E} \,.\end{aligned}$$ As long as $\tau_E$ depends only weakly on ${R_p}$, this means that stars transition to smaller galactic radii as $\exp(-t/2\tau_E)$ due to Cherenkov radiation. If this calculation is correct, stars in the flat part of the rotation curve lose energy by transitioning to smaller galactic radii, not by losing their velocity. This is due to the assumption that the star's velocity is always the circular velocity, even as it transitions to smaller radii. In the next subsection, we show numerically that this assumption is justified. Orbits of stars emitting Cherenkov radiation {#sec:Edotcalculation:orbits} -------------------------------------------- Here, we numerically investigate how stars orbit around a galaxy under the influence of the non-relativistic Cherenkov radiation derived above. We model the effect of the Cherenkov radiation as a friction force that reproduces the energy loss $\dot{E}$ calculated above. Modelling the Cherenkov radiation as a friction force is justified because the energy loss happens through a large number of emissions, each of which carries away only a very small fraction of the star's energy. This is different from the high-energy Cherenkov radiation emitted from ultra-relativistic protons discussed in Refs. @Caves1980 [@Moore2001; @Elliott2005; @Kimura2012], where a single emission carries away a significant fraction of the proton's energy and thus produces a significant recoil @Chesler2017. For simplicity, we consider the deep-MOND regime of a galaxy and we consider orbits $\vec{X}(t)$ that would be circular without the energy loss due to Cherenkov radiation. Concretely, we consider initial conditions $Y(t_0) = R_0$, $X(t_0) = Z(t_0) = 0$, $\dot{X}(t_0) = V_0$, and $\dot{Y}(t_0) = \dot{Z}(t_0) = 0$, with equation of motion $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:orbiteom} \ddot{\vec{X}} = \vec{a}_{\mathrm{grav}} - \left(R_\eta \cdot \dot{\vec{X}}\right) \eta \,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $V_0$ is the MOND circular velocity $(G M_{\mathrm{gal}} a_0)^{1/4}$, $\vec{a}_{\mathrm{grav}}$ is the MOND gravitational acceleration, and $\eta$ is the coefficient of the friction force due to Cherenkov radiation. The direction of this friction force is that of $R_\eta \dot{\vec{X}}$, where $R_\eta$ is a rotation matrix. For our prototype Lagrangian, the friction force points in the direction of $\vec{V}$ for both $\vec{V} \perp \hat{a}$ and $\vec{V} \parallel \hat{a}$, i.e. $R_\eta$ is just the identity matrix. For a general orientation of $\vec{V}$, the force is rotated within the $X$-$Y$ plane. This is discussed in Appendix \[sec:Edotcalculation:direction\]. For standard SFDM, the force is rotated in the $X$-$Y$ plane even for the special case $\vec{V} \perp \hat{a}$. This is because spatial and time derivatives are mixed there, see Sec. \[sec:standardsfdm\] and Appendix \[sec:Edotcalculation:standardsfdm:direction\]. We can find the coefficient $\eta$ by contracting Eq. with $\dot{\vec{X}} = \vec{V}$ and then comparing to the energy balance equation $$\begin{aligned} \partial_t \left( \frac 12 M V^2 + E_{\mathrm{grav}}\right) = \dot{E}_{\mathrm{Cherenkov}} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{\mathrm{grav}}$ is the gravitational energy and $\dot{E}_{\mathrm{Cherenkov}}$ is the energy loss rate due to Cherenkov radiation. This gives $$\begin{aligned} \eta = \frac{|\dot{E}_{\mathrm{Cherenkov}}|}{M (\vec{V}^T R_\eta \vec{V})} = \frac{1}{2 \tau_E \cos \theta_\eta} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_\eta$ is the angle by which $R_\eta$ rotates the vector $\vec{V}$ in the $X$-$Y$ plane. Since $\tau_E$ scales as $V^3$, we choose to write $$\begin{aligned} \ddot{\vec{X}} = \vec{a}_{\mathrm{grav}} - \frac{R_\eta \cdot \dot{\vec{X}}}{2 \cos \theta_\eta V^3} \cdot \frac{V^3}{\tau_E} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where the factor $V^3/\tau_E$ is independent of $V$ and is time-dependent only through factors like $a_0/a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}$ that occur in $\tau_E$ in some models and depend on the star's position in the galaxy. For simplicity, we assume such factors to be roughly constant for now. We first consider the case where $\theta_\eta = 0$ that is relevant for our prototype Lagrangian for circular orbits. The resulting orbits will not be exactly circular, that is we do not have $\vec{V} \perp \hat{a}$ exactly. But we expect this to be a reasonable approximation for the numerical values we consider. For very large $\tau_E$, it is clear that the friction term does not have any effect. Similarly, it is clear that stars will quickly fall in to the center of the galaxy for very small $\tau_E$. The most interesting case is when $\tau_E$ is roughly of the order of galactic timescales. Thus, here we choose as numerical values $$\begin{aligned} R_0 = 30\,\mathrm{kpc} \,, \quad V_0 = 200\,\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}\,, \quad \frac{\tau_E}{V^3} = \frac{5 \cdot 10^9\,\mathrm{yr}}{(200\,\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s})^3} \,.\end{aligned}$$ We do not have to choose a mass for the star since the equations are independent of this mass. Our choice of $V_0$ and $R_0$ also fixes the host galaxy's mass, since we require orbits to be circular in the absence of Cherenkov radiation, i.e. $\sqrt{G M_{\mathrm{gal}} a_0}/{R_p}= V_0^2/{R_p}$. The resulting equation of motion is similar to that in the case of dynamical friction in galaxies, see e.g. Ref. @VandenBosch1999. ![ Orbit of a perturber in the MOND regime of a galaxy with (dashed orange line) and without (solid blue line) friction due to Cherenkov radiation. The friction corresponds to a timescale $\tau_E = 5\cdot10^9\,\mathrm{yr}$ and acts in the direction of the velocity, i.e. $\theta_\eta = 0$. The initial conditions are $Y(0) = 30\,\mathrm{kpc}$, $X(0) = 0$, and $\dot{X}(0) = V_0 = 200\,\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}$, $\dot{Y}(0) = 0$. The galaxy mass is chosen such that these initial conditions give a circular orbit without friction. The orbits are integrated for a total time of $10^{10}\,\mathrm{yr}$. <span data-label="fig:orbitXY"></span>](code/plots/orbit-with-friction-XY.pdf){width=".65\textwidth"} ![ Left: Velocity of a perturber losing energy through Cherenkov radiation relative to its initial velocity. The dashed orange line corresponds to the orbit with friction from Fig. \[fig:orbitXY\] ($\theta_\eta = 0$). The solid blue line shows an orbit with the same parameters but with a force that is rotated according to Eq. ($\theta_\eta \neq 0$). Right: The perturber's position ${R_p}$ in the host galaxy relative to its initial position for the same orbits as in the left panel (solid blue line for $\theta_\eta = 0$ and dashed orange line for $\theta_\eta \neq 0$), and additionally for the analytical estimate Eq. (dotted green line). <span data-label="fig:orbitRV"></span>](code/plots/orbit-with-friction-V.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} ![ Left: Velocity of a perturber losing energy through Cherenkov radiation relative to its initial velocity. The dashed orange line corresponds to the orbit with friction from Fig. \[fig:orbitXY\] ($\theta_\eta = 0$). The solid blue line shows an orbit with the same parameters but with a force that is rotated according to Eq. ($\theta_\eta \neq 0$). Right: The perturber's position ${R_p}$ in the host galaxy relative to its initial position for the same orbits as in the left panel (solid blue line for $\theta_\eta = 0$ and dashed orange line for $\theta_\eta \neq 0$), and additionally for the analytical estimate Eq. (dotted green line). <span data-label="fig:orbitRV"></span>](code/plots/orbit-with-friction-R.pdf "fig:"){width=".49\textwidth"} We numerically integrate the equation of motion for $10^{10}\,\mathrm{yr}$ in Mathematica @Mathematica12. The resulting orbit in the $X$-$Y$ plane is shown in Fig. \[fig:orbitXY\]. We see that the star transitions to smaller galactic radii due to the friction force. Fig. \[fig:orbitRV\], left, shows that the mean velocity of the star stays roughly constant during this transition, but there are small oscillations on the percentage level. Fig \[fig:orbitRV\], right, shows the star's distance to the host galaxy's center ${R_p}= |\vec{X}|$ both for the numerical calculation and for our analytical estimate from Sec. \[sec:general:cherenkov\], $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:dotRgalappendix} \frac{{\dot{R}_p}}{{R_p}} = - \frac{1}{2\tau_E}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Up to small oscillations, the numerical and analytical results agree with each other. This justifies the analytical estimate from Sec. \[sec:general:cherenkov\]. Consider now the case $\theta_\eta \neq 0$. For concreteness we take $\theta_\eta$ from standard SFDM, where $\theta_\eta = 0$ for $\vec{V} \parallel \hat{a}$, but $\theta_\eta \neq 0$ for $\vec{V} \perp \hat{a}$, as shown in Appendix \[sec:Edotcalculation:standardsfdm:direction\]. In both cases, the force stays within the $X$-$Y$ plane, so that we do not need to include a $Z$ component. For $\vec{V} \perp \hat{a}$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:thetaeta} \tan \theta_\eta = - \frac12 \frac{f_{{\bar{\beta}}}V}{\bar{c}} \,, \end{aligned}$$ where $f_{{\bar{\beta}}}$ is a constant that depends on the model parameter ${{\bar{\beta}}}$, see Sec. \[sec:standardsfdm\]. The orbit we consider is mostly, but not exactly, circular. Still, we expect that using Eq. is a reasonable approximation. We further adopt $$\begin{aligned} f_{{\bar{\beta}}}= 1/\sqrt{3} \,, \quad \bar{c} = 50\,\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s} \,.\end{aligned}$$ The value of $f_{{\bar{\beta}}}$ is the largest possible value for the parameter range we consider, see Sec. \[sec:standardsfdm\]. The value for $\bar{c}$ is unusually small. This gives an unusually large $\tan \theta_\eta$. Despite this, the resulting orbit is very similar to that for $\theta_\eta = 0$. This can be seen from the dashed orange lines in Fig. \[fig:orbitRV\]. The oscillations differ slightly, but the qualitative behavior is the same. The details of the oscillations also depend on the choice of initial condition. But we have numerically verified that, at least for initially approximately circular orbits, these oscillations always stay small and the radial decay of the orbit is accurately captured by Eq. .[^3] Additionally, as mentioned above, there may be ${R_p}$-dependent factors in $\tau_E$ that we have so far neglected. We have numerically verified that our conclusions hold even with an ${R_p}$-dependent $\tau_E$. Specifically, we have verified that for $\tau_E \propto {R_p}$ (relevant for standard SFDM, see Sec. \[sec:standardsfdm\]) and $\tau_E \propto {R_p}^2$ (relevant for some cases of dynamical friction @VandenBosch1999), Eq. still accurately captures the transition to smaller radii. We have further verified that the orbital decay still happens on a timescale $\tau_E$ in these cases. Regime of validity {#sec:general:validity} ------------------ We now come back to the question of how to choose the cutoffs $k_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $k_{\mathrm{max}}$ in our calculation of the energy loss due to Cherenkov radiation. We will argue that reasonable values are $$\begin{aligned} k_{\mathrm{min}} &\sim 1/\mathrm{kpc} \sim 10^{-26}\,\mathrm{eV} \,, \\ k_{\mathrm{max}} &\sim f_p \cdot \sqrt{\frac{a_0}{G M}} \sqrt{\frac{a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}}{a_0}} \sim 10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV} \cdot f_p \cdot \sqrt{\frac{a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}}{a_0}} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $k_{\mathrm{min}}$ is determined by the scale on which the background field $\varphi_0$ varies. In galaxies, this is typically $\mathcal{O}(\mathrm{kpc})$. The upper cutoff $k_{\mathrm{max}}$ is determined by the distance from the perturber where its field drops below the galaxy's background field, i.e. the distance from where on we can actually treat the perturber's field as a perturbation. This is related to the perturber's MOND radius $r_{\mathrm{MOND}} = \sqrt{G M/a_0}$ outside of which the MOND regime begins. It's also related to the galaxy's Newtonian baryonic acceleration $a_b^{\mathrm{gal}} = G M_{\mathrm{gal}}/{R_p}^2$ at the perturber's position. For $M = M_\odot$, we have $r_{\mathrm{MOND}} \approx 3 \cdot 10^{-5}\,\mathrm{kpc}$, corresponding to $k_{\mathrm{max}} \approx 10^{-22}\,\mathrm{eV}$. Since we assume the galaxy to be in the MOND regime for our calculations, the factor $\sqrt{a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}/a_0}$ is smaller than 1, but large enough such that $k_{\mathrm{max}}$ is still much larger than $k_{\mathrm{min}}$. The factor $f_p$ is a model-dependent correction factor. Our method of calculation gives a nonzero energy loss only for $k_{\mathrm{max}} > k_{\mathrm{min}}$. This is because these are the limits of a momentum integral, see Appendix \[sec:Edotcalculation\]. Thus, our method gives useful results only for $M \lesssim 10^8\,M_\odot$. This means we can apply our results to stars and also to many globular clusters. But most dwarf galaxies are too heavy. In the following, we will mainly consider stars. We choose the cutoffs $k_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $k_{\mathrm{max}}$ to ensure that our prototype Lagrangian from Eq. is valid. The conditions for this are: - Our calculation assumes that ${g_m}$ and $\bar{c}$ do not vary on the scales under consideration. Also, in deriving a Lagrangian like Eq. for perturbations, one usually neglects derivatives of the background fields against derivatives of the perturbations. This restricts us to scales smaller than $\sim\mathrm{kpc}$ since the galactic background varies on this scale. This means we need to choose $$\begin{aligned} k_{\mathrm{min}} \gtrsim 1/\mathrm{kpc} \,. \end{aligned}$$ - Close to a star, the baryonic acceleration is larger than the MOND acceleration scale $a_0$ and we are in the Newtonian regime. Depending on the model, other terms in the Lagrangian may become important there. For example, higher derivative terms might become important @Babichev2011. Thus, our prototype Lagrangian may not be valid in this regime. Or it may be valid but with different parameters $g_m$ and $\bar{c}$. This Newtonian regime ends at a radius of about $$\begin{aligned} r_{\mathrm{MOND}} = \sqrt{G M/a_0} \,. \end{aligned}$$ This means we should restrict our calculation to larger scales, i.e. we should choose $$\begin{aligned} k_{\mathrm{max}} \lesssim \frac1{r_{\mathrm{MOND}}} \,. \end{aligned}$$ - Close to a star, the field due to the star dominates compared to the background field of the host galaxy. Thus, we are not allowed to expand around the galaxy's background field. This regime ends roughly at a radius $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:rmaxpert} r_{\mathrm{pert}} = {R_p}\sqrt{M/M_{\mathrm{gal}}} \,. \end{aligned}$$ We can write this as $$\begin{aligned} r_{\mathrm{pert}} = r_{\mathrm{MOND}} \sqrt{\frac{a_0}{a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}}} \,. \end{aligned}$$ Thus, we should choose $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:kmaxpert1} k_{\mathrm{max}} \lesssim \frac1{r_{\mathrm{MOND}}} \sqrt{\frac{a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}}{a_0}} \,. \end{aligned}$$ - The estimate Eq. gives the radius where the static field of a static perturber becomes smaller than the host galaxy's background field. However, we are interested in a dynamical situation where Cherenkov radiation is emitted. It is possible that a different condition controls when the dynamical field due to the perturber is small compared to the galaxy's static background field. In general, this cannot be estimated in a model-independent way. Thus, we introduce a factor $f_p \lesssim 1$ to allow for a smaller cutoff $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:kmaxpert2} k_{\mathrm{max}} \lesssim f_p \frac1{r_{\mathrm{MOND}}} \sqrt{\frac{a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}}{a_0}} \,. \end{aligned}$$ For standard SFDM, we have explicitly checked which values of $f_p$ are allowed, see Appendix \[sec:standasfdm:perturbationssmall\]. We find that we can set $f_p = 1$ for $\vec{V} \perp \hat{a}$, $$\begin{aligned} f_p^\perp =1\,. \end{aligned}$$ For $\vec{V} \parallel \hat{a}$, we may need to decrease $f_p$ a bit. The worst case is for parallel (rather than anti-parallel) $\vec{V}$ and $\hat{a}$ with ${{\bar{\beta}}}= 3/2$ and a velocity $V$ that is just barely larger than the critical velocity. In this case, we estimate $$\begin{aligned} \left(f_p^\parallel\right)^{\mathrm{worst\,case}} \approx 1 / \sqrt{2.8} \,. \end{aligned}$$ For larger values of ${{\bar{\beta}}}$, larger velocities, or for anti-parallel $\vec{V}$ and $\hat{a}$, we can choose $f_p^\parallel$ much closer to $1$. As explained in Appendix \[sec:Edotcalculation:standardsfdm:cutoffs\], introducing cutoffs in the way we do means we cannot take $V \to V_{\mathrm{crit}}$ without perturbations becoming large. Thus, here we restrict ourselves to $V$ at least $1\%$ away from $V_{\mathrm{crit}}$. This does not significantly affect any of our conclusions. - We need to choose $k_{\mathrm{max}} < 2 M (V - \bar{c} \sqrt{2})$. This is the standard cutoff in Cherenkov radiation calculations, see Appendix \[sec:Edotcalculation\]. However, numerically, this is not relevant in our case because the other cutoffs we considered are much more restricting. Concretely, we have $2 M V \sim 10^{63}\,\mathrm{eV} \cdot (M/M_\odot) \cdot (V/200\mathrm{km/s})$. This is the reason our energy loss behaves like a friction force without a significant recoil. We restrict $k$ to be much smaller than the perturber's momentum $M V$. In principle, there can be additional model-dependent cuts, i.e. further restrictions on the validity of our prototype Lagrangian. Here, we assume that there are no such cuts or, at least, that they are less restricting than the cuts we already considered above. As long as $k_{\mathrm{min}} \ll k_{\mathrm{max}}$, the result Eq. for the timescale $\tau_E$ is dominated by $k_{\mathrm{max}}$. Then, with our particular choice of $k_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $k_{\mathrm{max}}$, $$\begin{aligned} \tau_E = \frac{V^3}{f_a f_p^2 \bar{c}^2 {g_m}^2 a_0} \cdot \frac{a_0}{a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}} \,.\end{aligned}$$ This is independent of the perturber's mass, but depends on the position of the perturber in the galaxy. Numerically, $$\begin{aligned} \tau_E = \frac{2\cdot10^8\,\mathrm{yr}}{f_a f_p^2 \, {g_m}^2} \cdot \left(\frac{V/\bar{c}}{2}\right)^2 \cdot \left(\frac{a_0}{a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}}\right) \cdot \left(\frac{V}{200\,\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}}\right) \cdot \left(\frac{1.2 \cdot 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}^2}{a_0}\right) \,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for ${g_m}$ of order 1 and $V > V_{\mathrm{crit}}$, stars in galaxies lose a significant fraction of their energy on timescales $\tau_E$ which are not much larger than typical galactic timescales. As already mentioned above, our result for $|\dot{E}|$ is a conservative lower bound. The actual energy loss may be higher. In particular, modes with $k > k_{\mathrm{max}}$ and $k < k_{\mathrm{min}}$ may contribute to the energy loss, but are not considered here. Application to standard SFDM {#sec:standardsfdm} ============================ We will now apply the results of Sec. \[sec:general\] to superfluid dark matter @Berezhiani2015. We refer to this original model from Ref. @Berezhiani2015 as standard <span>SFDM</span> to differentiate it from the two-field <span>SFDM</span> model from Ref. @Mistele2020 that we discuss in Sec. \[sec:twofieldsfdm\]. The idea of <span>SFDM</span> is to introduce a new type of particle which condenses to a superfluid on galactic scales where the phonons then mediate a <span>MOND</span>-like force. On cosmological scales, this particle simply behaves as cold dark matter. Concretely, Ref. @Berezhiani2015 proposes the following non-relativistic Lagrangian for the field $\theta$ that carries both the superfluid and the <span>MOND</span> force, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:sfdm} \mathcal{L} = \frac{2\Lambda}{3} (2m)^{3/2} \sqrt{|X - {{\bar{\beta}}}Y|} X - \frac{{\bar{\alpha}}\Lambda}{M_{\rm{Pl}}} \rho_b \, \theta \,,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} X = \dot{\theta} + \hat{\mu} - (\vec{\nabla} \theta)^2/(2m) \,, \quad Y = \dot{\theta} + \hat{\mu} \,, \quad \hat{\mu} = \mu_{\rm{nr}} - m \phi_{\rm{N}} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $m$ is the mass of the superfluid constituent's particles, $\mu_{\rm{nr}}$ is the non-relativistic chemical potential, $\Lambda$ is a constant with mass-dimension one, ${\bar{\alpha}}$ is a dimensionless constant, ${{\bar{\beta}}}$ parametrizes finite-temperature effects, and $\phi_N$ is the Newtonian gravitational potential. The non-relativistic chemical potential $\mu_{\rm{nr}}$ is related to the relativistic chemical potential $\mu$ by $\mu = m + \mu_{\rm{nr}}$ with $\mu_{\rm{nr}} \ll m$. In the static limit, the phonon force $\vec{a}_\theta = - (\alpha \Lambda/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}) \vec{\nabla} \theta$ has a MOND-like form for $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:mondlimit} (\vec{\nabla} \theta)^2 \gg 2 m \hat{\mu} \,.\end{aligned}$$ We refer to this limit as the MOND limit of SFDM. In this case,[^4] $$\begin{aligned} X \approx X - {{\bar{\beta}}}Y \approx - (\vec{\nabla} \theta)^2/(2m) \,.\end{aligned}$$ The quantity ${{\bar{\beta}}}$ must be larger than $3/2$ to fix an instability[^5] and it must be smaller than $3$ so that the superfluid energy density is positive @Berezhiani2015. In the following, we assume the MOND limit $(\vec{\nabla} \theta)^2 \gg 2 m \hat{\mu}$. In Refs. @Mistele2020 [@Mistele2022] we estimated that many galaxies cannot reach this MOND limit. Here, we assume the MOND limit anyway for two reasons. First, this simplifies the equations so that our results for standard SFDM serve as an illustrative example of how one can constrain hybrid models using Cherenkov radiation from non-relativistic objects. Second, our results provide an independent method to rule out that a given galaxy is in the MOND limit. That is, compared to our estimates from Refs. @Mistele2020 [@Mistele2022], our Cherenkov radiation constraints can rule out a MOND limit for a different set of galaxies and using a different physical mechanism. Of course, our constraints can be avoided by simply allowing galaxies to go outside the MOND limit. But the MOND limit is one of the main motivations behind SFDM. Knowing under which circumstances such a MOND limit can exist is important. We will use the observed Milky Way rotation curve to rule out a MOND limit in the Milky Way for certain values of the SFDM model parameters. Specifically, assuming a MOND limit, we find constraints on the parameter combination $\sqrt{{\bar{\alpha}}}/m$ for each fixed value of the parameter ${{\bar{\beta}}}$, which parametrizes finite-temperature corrections. For the fiducial value ${{\bar{\beta}}}= 2$ from Ref. @Berezhiani2018, we will rule out roughly the interval $$\begin{aligned} 0.34\,\mathrm{eV}^{-1} \lesssim \frac{\sqrt{{\bar{\alpha}}}}{m} \lesssim 3.29\,\mathrm{eV}^{-1} \,.\end{aligned}$$ This includes the fiducial value $\sqrt{{\bar{\alpha}}}/m = 2.4\,\mathrm{eV}^{-1}$ from Ref. @Berezhiani2018. Perturbations ------------- We consider perturbations on top of a background galaxy in the MOND limit $(\vec{\nabla} \theta)^2 \ll 2 m \hat{\mu}$. We further consider the MOND regime $a_b < a_0$, so that potential higher-order terms are negligible, as discussed in Sec. \[sec:general:validity\]. Then, the perturbed Lagrangian is (see Appendix \[sec:standardsfdmpert\]) $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal{L} = \frac12 \dot{\delta}^2 \bar{c}^{-2} - \frac12 (\vec{\nabla} \delta)^2 - \frac12 (\hat{a} \vec{\nabla} \delta)^2 + \bar{c}^{-1} (3-{{\bar{\beta}}}) \bar{f}_{{\bar{\beta}}}\hat{a} \vec{\nabla} \delta \dot{\delta} - \frac{{g_m}}{\sqrt{2} M_{\mathrm{Pl}}} \delta \, \delta_b\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned} \bar{c} = 3 \bar{f}_{{\bar{\beta}}}\, \frac{|\vec{a}_{\theta_0}|}{a_0} \frac{{\bar{\alpha}}^2 \Lambda}{m}\,, \quad {g_m}= \sqrt{\frac{a_0}{|a_{\theta_0}|}} \,, \quad \hat{a} = \frac{\vec{\nabla} \theta_0}{|\vec{\nabla} \theta_0|} = - \frac{\vec{a}_{\theta_0}}{|a_{\theta_0}|} \,,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned} \bar{f}_{{\bar{\beta}}}= \frac{1}{\sqrt{3 \left({{\bar{\beta}}}-1\right) \left({{\bar{\beta}}}+3\right)}} \,.\end{aligned}$$ The quantities $\theta_0$ and $a_{\theta_0}$ refer to the background values of $\theta$ and $a_\theta$. This Lagrangian has the form of our prototype Lagrangian from Eq. up to the term proportional to $\bar{f}_{{{\bar{\beta}}}}$ that mixes spatial and time derivatives. The quantity $\bar{c}$ determines the sound speed up to order 1 corrections, which we discuss below. This gives a non-relativistic sound speed, as expected for a non-relativistic superfluid. For the fiducial parameters from Ref. @Berezhiani2018 ($m = 1\,\mathrm{eV}$, ${\bar{\alpha}}= 5.7$, $\Lambda = 0.05\,\mathrm{meV}$, ${{\bar{\beta}}}= 2$), we have $$\begin{aligned} \bar{c} = 1.25 \cdot 10^{-3} \frac{|\vec{a}_{\theta_0}|}{a_0} = 375\,\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s} \cdot \frac{|\vec{a}_{\theta_0}|}{a_0} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Since we consider the MOND regime $a_b < a_0$, we have $|\vec{a}_{\theta_0}|/a_0 \lesssim 1$. Thus, indeed $\bar{c} \ll 1$. The full dispersion relation is, see Appendix \[sec:standardsfdmpert\], $$\begin{aligned} \omega = \bar{c} |\vec{k}| \left( \sqrt{1 + \gamma^2(1 + f_{{\bar{\beta}}}^2)} + f_{{\bar{\beta}}}\gamma \right) \,,\end{aligned}$$ with $f_{{\bar{\beta}}}\equiv (3 - {{\bar{\beta}}}) \bar{f}_{{\bar{\beta}}}$. This is the standard result from our prototype Lagrangian up to corrections from $f_{{\bar{\beta}}}$, i.e. up to corrections from the mixing of spatial and time derivatives. Unfortunately, due to this mixing of spatial and time derivatives, our standard calculation of the energy loss $\dot{E}$ from Appendix \[sec:Edotcalculation\] based on the standard QFT formalism does not apply here. Instead of adjusting the QFT formalism for our case at hand, we instead choose to do a classical calculation for standard SFDM. This calculation is done in Appendix \[sec:Edotcalculation:standardsfdm\] and follows that of the standard electromagnetic Cherenkov radiation from Ref. @Jackson1998. The result from the classical calculation has the same form as that from our previous QFT calculation, but with slightly adjusted critical velocities $V_{\mathrm{crit}}$ and $\hat{a}$-dependent factors $f_a$ to account for the mixing of spatial and time derivatives. We also use this classical calculation to explicitly determine the factor $f_p$. That is, we check when perturbations are small compared to the galaxy's background field. We find that we can use $f_p = 1$ for our purposes, see Appendix \[sec:standasfdm:perturbationssmall\] and Sec. \[sec:general:validity\]. For $\vec{V} \parallel \hat{a}$, the critical velocity $V_{\mathrm{crit}}$ is $$\begin{aligned} V_{\mathrm{crit}}^\parallel = \bar{c} \left(\sqrt{2+f_{{\bar{\beta}}}^2} \pm f_{{\bar{\beta}}}\right) \,. \end{aligned}$$ The plus and minus signs are for parallel and antiparallel orientations, respectively. For the parallel case, $V_{\mathrm{crit}}^\parallel$ can be significantly larger compared to our prototype Lagrangian where $V_{\mathrm{crit}}^\parallel = \sqrt{2} \bar{c}$. For the antiparallel case, $V_{\mathrm{crit}}^\parallel$ can be significantly smaller. The timescale $\tau_E$ has the same form as for our prototype Lagrangian but with a modified factor $f_a$, $$\begin{aligned} f_a^\parallel = \frac{1}{1 - (\bar{c}/V)^2 \mp 2 f_{{\bar{\beta}}}(\bar{c}/V)} \,, \end{aligned}$$ where the minus sign is for the parallel and the plus sign for the antiparallel case. Depending on this sign, $f_a^\parallel$ is smaller or larger than for our prototype Lagrangian where $f_a^\parallel = 1/(1-(\bar{c}/V)^2)$. Both $V_{\mathrm{crit}}^\parallel$ and $f_a^\parallel$ agree with our standard calculation in the $f_{{\bar{\beta}}}= 0$ case. For $\vec{V} \perp \hat{a}$, the critical velocity $V_{\mathrm{crit}}$ is $$\begin{aligned} V_{\mathrm{crit}}^\perp = \bar{c} \, \sqrt{\frac{2}{2 + f_{{\bar{\beta}}}^2}} \,. \end{aligned}$$ In this case, some angular integrals are difficult to evaluate analytically, see Appendix \[sec:Edotcalculation:standardsfdm:cutoffs\]. This makes it difficult to analytically obtain the timescale $\tau_E$. But we can do a somewhat more conservative estimate and find as a lower limit on $f_a^\perp$, $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:sfdmstandard:faperp} f_a^\perp = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1}{1 + f_{{\bar{\beta}}}^2} \,. \end{aligned}$$ The critical velocity $V_{\mathrm{crit}}^\perp$ reproduces our standard result for the $f_{{\bar{\beta}}}=0$ case. But $f_a^\perp$ does not due to the more conservative estimate, see Appendix \[sec:Edotcalculation:standardsfdm:cutoffs\]. Constraints {#sec:standardsfdm:constraints} ----------- We can now put quantitative constraints on standard SFDM. In the MOND limit, a good approximation is the so-called no-curl approximation $|\vec{a}_{\theta_0}| = \sqrt{a_0 a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}}$ @Hossenfelder2020 with $a_b^{\mathrm{gal}} = G M_{\mathrm{gal}}/{R_p}^2$. This gives $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:standardsfdm:cbar} \bar{c} = \frac{3 \bar{f}_{{\bar{\beta}}}}{\sqrt{8\pi}} \frac{\sqrt{\bar{\alpha}}}{m} \sqrt{\frac{M_{\mathrm{gal}}}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}} \frac{1}{{R_p}} \,. \end{aligned}$$ For circular orbits, the critical velocity is $V_{\mathrm{crit}}^\perp = \bar{c} \sqrt{2/(2 + f_{{\bar{\beta}}}^2)}$. This critical velocity scales as $1/{R_p}$ inside a given galaxy. In contrast, rotation curves are flat at large ${R_p}$. Thus, there is a galactocentric radius where $V_{\mathrm{crit}}$ drops below the rotation curve velocity $V_{\mathrm{rot}}$. Beyond this radius, stars with velocity $V_{\mathrm{rot}}$ lose energy on timescales $\tau_E$. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:sfdm-vrot-vs-soundspeed\]. ![ Critical velocity $V_{\mathrm{crit}}^\perp$ (solid orange line) and rotation curve $V_{\mathrm{rot}}$ (dashed blue and red line) of a galaxy with mass $M_{\mathrm{gal}} = 5 \cdot 10^{10}\,M_\odot$ concentrated at its center in standard SFDM with the fiducial parameter values from Ref. @Berezhiani2018. The shaded region is not in the MOND regime since $a_b^{\mathrm{gal}} > a_0$. Stars emit Cherenkov radiation when they move faster than the critical velocity. <span data-label="fig:sfdm-vrot-vs-soundspeed"></span>](code/sfdm-standard/plots/vrot-vs-sound-speed.pdf){width=".7\textwidth"} For standard SFDM, the timescale $\tau_E$ is $$\begin{aligned} \tau_E = \frac{V^3}{f_a f_p^2 \bar{c}^2 a_0} \cdot \sqrt{\frac{a_0}{a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}}} \,. \end{aligned}$$ This depends on parameters of the model mainly through the factor $\bar{c}^{-2}$. In principle, $a_0 = \bar{\alpha}^3 \Lambda^2/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$ also depends these parameters. But $a_0$ is mostly fixed by requiring standard MOND-like rotation curves. Thus, $\tau_E$ depends on the model parameters as $\tau_E \propto 1/\bar{c}^2$ so that our Cherenkov constraints can be avoided in two ways: Either, $\bar{c}$ is sufficiently large so that most stars are subsonic and therefore don't emit Cherenkov radiation since Cherenkov radiation is kinematically forbidden. Or $\bar{c}$ is sufficiently small so that stars that are supersonic lose only little energy through Cherenkov radiation. This means that we need for most stars that either $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:cherenkov-conditions} V < V_{\mathrm{crit}} \propto \bar{c} \quad \mathrm{or} \quad \tau_{\mathrm{min}} < \tau_E \propto \frac{1}{\bar{c}^2} \,,\end{aligned}$$ for some reasonable minimum timescale $\tau_{\mathrm{min}}$. This rules out an interval of $\bar{c}$ values which, through Eq. , corresponds to an interval of $\sqrt{{\bar{\alpha}}}/m$ values. More quantitatively, a rotation curve velocity $V$ at a radius ${R_p}$ rules out the following interval of $\sqrt{{\bar{\alpha}}}/m$ values $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:standardsfdm:rotcurve:interval1} \frac{V {R_p}}{\bar{f}_{{\bar{\beta}}}} \frac{\sqrt{8\pi}}{3} \sqrt{\frac{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}{M_{\mathrm{gal}}}} \cdot \left( \sqrt{\frac{V}{\tau_{\mathrm{min}} f_a f_p^2} \sqrt{\frac{{R_p}^2}{a_0 G M_{\mathrm{gal}}}} } \,, \sqrt{1 + \frac12 f_{{\bar{\beta}}}^2} \right) \,,\end{aligned}$$ where we used the notation $a \cdot (x_1, x_2) \equiv (a x_1, a x_2)$. For rotation curves with approximately circular orbits, we can set $f_a = f_a^\perp$ (see Eq. ) and $f_p = 1$ as discussed in Sec. \[sec:general:validity\] and Appendix \[sec:standasfdm:perturbationssmall\]. For simplicity, we separately consider three different values of ${{\bar{\beta}}}$ $$\begin{aligned} {{\bar{\beta}}}\in \{3/2, 2, 3\}\,. \end{aligned}$$ This covers the range of plausible values for ${{\bar{\beta}}}$. Namely, ${{\bar{\beta}}}$ must be larger than $3/2$ to fix an instability[^6] and it must be smaller than $3$ so that the superfluid energy density is positive @Berezhiani2015. The fiducial value from Ref. @Berezhiani2018 is ${{\bar{\beta}}}= 2$. For a fixed value of ${{\bar{\beta}}}$, we have $\bar{c}\propto \sqrt{{\bar{\alpha}}}/m$. This allows us to constrain $\sqrt{{\bar{\alpha}}}/m$ given a value of ${{\bar{\beta}}}$. In standard SFDM, $a_0$ is given by $\bar{\alpha}^3 \Lambda^2/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$. Thus, strictly speaking, the lower boundary of the interval in Eq. depends on a different combination of model parameters than the upper boundary. However, in practice this is not important. Namely, the lower boundary depends on $a_0$ only very mildly, as $a_0^{-1/4}$. For a useful MOND regime, we must choose $a_0$ close to $10^{-10}\,\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}^2$ @Lelli2017b [@Berezhiani2018]. Thus, to get a conservative estimate, we simply take the unusually small but fixed value $$\begin{aligned} \bar{a}_0 \equiv 0.5\cdot10^{-10}\,\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}^2 \,, \end{aligned}$$ when evaluating the lower boundary of Eq. instead of $a_0 = \bar{\alpha}^3 \Lambda^2/M_{\mathrm{Pl}}$. We can now rule out various intervals of $\sqrt{\bar{\alpha}}/m$ using the observed Milky Way rotation curve. We assume a Milky Way baryonic mass of $M_{\mathrm{gal}} = 6 \cdot 10^{10}\,M_\odot$ following Refs. @Mistele2020 [@Hossenfelder2020], and the rotation curve data from Refs. @McGaugh2019b [@Eilers2019]. We choose $\tau_{\mathrm{min}} = 10^{10}\,\mathrm{yr}$, i.e. stars should not lose a significant fraction of their energy in $10^{10}\,\mathrm{yr}$. For ${{\bar{\beta}}}= 3/2$, $2$, and $3$, we list the excluded intervals of $\sqrt{\bar{\alpha}}/m$ from three different galactic radii in Table \[tab:standardsfdm:constraints\]. These radii are, roughly, ${R_p}= 15\,\mathrm{kpc}$, $20\,\mathrm{kpc}$, and $25\,\mathrm{kpc}$. The ruled out intervals from these three different radii overlap. Thus, taken together they rule out $\sqrt{\bar{\alpha}}/m$ in a larger interval $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:standardsfdm:rotcurve:intervalnumeric} \sqrt{\frac{6\cdot10^{10}\,M_\odot}{M_{\mathrm{gal}}}} \left( \sqrt{\frac{10^{10}\,\mathrm{yr}}{\tau_{\mathrm{min}}}} \left(\frac{6\cdot 10^{10}\,M_\odot}{M_{\mathrm{gal}}}\right)^{1/4} q_l, q_h \right) \cdot \mathrm{eV}^{-1} \,, \end{aligned}$$ for some dimensionless numbers $q_l$ and $q_h$. We have $$\begin{aligned} \label{eq:standardsfdm:q} \begin{split} q_l &= 0.25\,, q_h = 2.34\,, \quad \mathrm{for\,} {{\bar{\beta}}}=3/2 \,, \\ q_l &= 0.34\,, q_h = 3.29\,, \quad \mathrm{for\,} {{\bar{\beta}}}=2 \,, \\ q_l &= 0.51\,, q_h = 5.01\,, \quad \mathrm{for\,} {{\bar{\beta}}}=3 \,. \end{split} \end{aligned}$$ This also rules out the fiducial value $\sqrt{{\bar{\alpha}}}/m \approx 2.4\,\mathrm{eV}^{-1}$ for ${{\bar{\beta}}}=2$ from Ref. @Berezhiani2018. The precise ruled out values of $\sqrt{{\bar{\alpha}}}/m$ depend on our choice for $M_{\mathrm{gal}}$ and $\tau_{\mathrm{min}}$, as shown in Eq. . For example, Ref. @McGaugh2019b adopts the somewhat higher baryonic Milky Way mass $M_{\mathrm{gal}} = 7.4\cdot10^{10}\,M_\odot$. This would decrease both the upper and lower boundaries of the excluded $\sqrt{{\bar{\alpha}}}/m$ interval by about $10\%$. The value of $\tau_{\mathrm{min}}$ enters our result as the inverse square root, but affects only the lower interval boundary. Uncertainties in the measured rotation curve affect both the upper and lower boundaries of the excluded $\sqrt{{\bar{\alpha}}}/m$ interval, see Eq. . However, the formal errors in the rotation curve from Refs. @Eilers2019 [@McGaugh2019b] are less than $5\%$ for ${R_p}\lesssim 25\,\mathrm{kpc}$. Thus, the uncertainties in $M_{\mathrm{gal}}$ and $\tau_{\mathrm{min}}$ are the dominant sources of uncertainty in our constraints. In addition, we assumed for simplicity that $a_b^{\mathrm{gal}} = G M_{\mathrm{gal}}/{R_p}^2$ which is valid only in spherical symmetry, but not for a disk galaxy like the Milky Way. We have verified that this underestimates the correct axisymmetric value of $a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}$ by about $10-15\%$ in the range of radii considered here. Taking this into account would decrease both the upper and lower boundaries of the excluded interval by about $5-7\%$ which is not a large change compared to the other uncertainties. Thus, we choose to keep things simple for now and keep the spherically-symmetric assumption for $a_b^{\mathrm{gal}}$. It may be possible to push the upper boundary of
{'source': 'arXiv_out/2208'}