## Quasilocal Newtonian limit of general relativity and galactic dynamics

Marco Galoppo, 1, ∗ Federico Re, 2, † and David L. Wiltshire 1,

‡

1 School of Physical &amp; Chemical Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand 2 Dipartimento di Fisica 'Giuseppe Occhialini', Universit` a di Milano Bicocca, Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo 1, 20126, Milano, Italy

&amp; INFN, sezione di Milano, Via Celoria 16, 20133, Milano, Italy

A new Newtonian limit of general relativity is established for stationary axisymmetric gravitationally bound differentially rotating matter distributions with internal pressure. The self-consistent coupling of quasilocal gravitational energy and angular momentum leads to a modified Poisson equation. The coupled equations of motion of the effective fluid elements are also modified, with quasilocal angular momentum and frame-dragging leading to novel dynamics. The solutions of the full system reproduce the phenonomenology of collisionless dark matter for disc galaxies. The demonstration that general relativity possesses a new alternative low-energy limit different from the conventional post-Newtonian limit may have major consequences for all gravitational physics on galactic and cosmological scales.

The Newtonian limit of general relativity is crucially important to both fundamental physics and astrophysical phenomenology. In cosmology two key features consistent with observation are: (i) far from any localised sources the Universe is not empty; (ii) the Universe is not globally rotating on the largest scales.

Conventionally, one invokes an asymptotic Minkowski space, with respect to which additive Newtonian potentials are defined, despite observation (i). Moreover, even though known rotating asymptotically flat solutions of Einstein's equations-the Kerr and Kerr-Newman geometries-possess global non-zero angular momenta at spatial infinity, it is implicitly assumed that superposition of the effectively quasilocal angular momenta of such pointlike sources can be reconciled with observation (ii).

which spacetime itself carries its own energy and angular momentum [1-4]. Moreover, the highly nonlinear nature of general relativity gives rise to a noncommutativity of averaging and limiting procedures in spacetime [5, 6]. This has fundamental consequences for the dynamics of non-pointlike sources of large spatial extent, such as disc galaxies [7-10].

In this Letter we show that such implicit assumptions are misguided, even at nonrelativistic orbital speeds. The conventional limit neglects an important coupling of the quasilocal energy and angular momentum defined by the regional time-averaged motion of matter sources. We set out a new, self-consistent quasilocal Newtonian limit of general relativity , which does not assume a Minkwoskian spacetime background a priori . It introduces novel, firstorder features that fundamentally modify the dynamics considered.

The crucial ingredient of the differentially rotating models [7-13], firstly considered in Ref. [7], and in particular of the exact solutions of Ref. [10], is that essential nonlinearity is retained before any low energy limit is considered. No global background is assumed. This contrasts with: (a) approaches that investigate framedragging on asymptotically flat [14] or asymptotically Friedmann [15, 16] backgrounds; (b) phenomenological models which modify the laws of gravitation, e.g., modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) [17, 18].

The prescription of a fixed, global spacetime background is not a requirement of general relativity. Indeed, the nonlinearity of Einstein's field equations (EFE), which arises from the self-interaction of matter and geometry, results in dynamical, regional backgrounds in

In this Letter we demonstrate how insights from the conventional Newtonian framework may nonetheless be embedded in a quasilocal framework with an effective fluid. Furthermore, Einstein was never fully satisfied by the extent to which the EFE embody Mach's principle, viz., 'Local inertial frames are determined through the distributions of energy and momentum in the universe by some weighted average of the apparent motions' [19, 20]. The quasilocal Newtonian limit exhibits such a suitable weighted average, which we apply to disc galaxies showing that the EFE may actually contain an understanding of inertia consistent with MOND phenomenology.

The spacetime metrics can be written in the generalized Lewis-Papapetrou-Weyl form [9, 10, 21],

$$d s ^ { 2 } = - c ^ { 2 \Phi ( r, z ) / c ^ { 2 } } ( d t + A ( r, z ) \, d \phi ) ^ { 2 } + e ^ { - 2 \Phi ( r, z ) / c ^ { 2 } } \left [ W ( r, z ) ^ { 2 } \, d \phi ^ { 2 } + e ^ { 2 k ( r, z ) / c ^ { 2 } } ( d r ^ { 2 } + d z ^ { 2 } ) \right ] \,, \quad ( 1 )$$

The energy-momentum tensor takes the form T µν = ( ρ M ( r, z ) + p r, z ( ) /c 2 ) U U µ ν + ( p r, z ) g µν , (2)

where ρ M ( r, z ) is the local matter density, p r, z ( ) is the

effective pressure, and each element of the fluid possesses a 4-velocity U µ , given by

$$U ^ { \mu } \partial _ { \mu } = \left ( - H ( r, z ) \right ) ^ { - 1 / 2 } \left ( \partial _ { t } + \Omega ( r, z ) \, \partial _ { \phi } \right ) \,. \quad ( 3 ) \quad \text{when}$$

Here d ϕ/ d t = Ω( r, z ) uniquely defines the angular speed of rotation at any point, and H r, z ( ) is a normalization factor. Since U U µ µ = -c 2 , it follows that

$$H = - e ^ { 2 \Phi / c ^ { 2 } } ( 1 + A \, \Omega ) ^ { 2 } + e ^ { - 2 \Phi / c ^ { 2 } } W ^ { 2 } \, \Omega ^ { 2 } / c ^ { 2 } \,. \quad ( 4 )$$

case, we define the kinetic and dragging velocities

$$v _ { K } \coloneqq r \, \Omega \,, \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
 \quad v _ { K } \colon = r \, \Omega \,,$$

$$v _ { D } \coloneqq r \, \chi \,,$$

where χ := -g tϕ /g ϕϕ is the frame-dragging term. For systems in the low-energy regime-i.e., nonrelativistic relative local velocities v ≪ c , weak pseudo-Newtonian potential Φ ∼ v 2 , nonrelativistic frame-dragging, and small pressure p ∼ ρ M v 2 -then to leading order v K coincides with the special relativistic interpretation of the redshift, whilst v D follows by analogy [8-10].

Let us then write the EFE as

$$R _ { \mu \nu } = \frac { 8 \, \pi \, G } { c ^ { 4 } } \left ( T _ { \mu \nu } - \frac { 1 } { 2 } T \, g _ { \mu \nu } \right ) \,, \quad \quad ( 7 )$$

Relevant physical velocities have to be identified to correctly implement any low-velocity limit. In the present where T = T µ µ = 3 p -ρ M c 2 . With (1)-(4) this yields the partial differential equations (PDEs) [21]

$$\Phi _ {, a } ^ {, a } + \frac { W ^ {, a } \Phi _ {, a } } { W } + c ^ { 4 } \frac { A ^ {, a } A _ {, a } } { 2 W ^ { 2 } } e ^ { 4 \Phi / c ^ { 2 } } & = 4 \, \pi \, G e ^ { 2 ( k - 2 \Phi ) / c ^ { 2 } } \left [ \left ( \rho _ { M } + \frac { p } { c ^ { 2 } } \right ) \frac { ( 1 + A \Omega ) ^ { 2 } e ^ { 2 \Phi / c ^ { 2 } } + c ^ { - 2 } W ^ { 2 } \Omega ^ { 2 } e ^ { - 2 \Phi / c ^ { 2 } } } { - H } + 2 \frac { p } { c ^ { 2 } } \right ] \,, \\ \ m r. a \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \lambda \, \circ \,. \quad \dots$$

$$A ^ {, a } _ { \,, a } & - \frac { W ^ {, a } A _ {, a } } { W } + \frac { 4 } { c ^ { 2 } } \Phi ^ {, a } A _ {, a } = \frac { 1 6 \pi G } { c ^ { 4 } } W ^ { 2 } \Omega \frac { 1 + A \Omega } { H } \left ( \rho _ { M } + \frac { p } { c ^ { 2 } } \right ) e ^ { 2 ( k - 2 \Phi ) / c ^ { 2 } } \,, \\ W ^ {, a } _ { \,, a } & = \frac { 1 6 \pi G } { c ^ { 4 } } p \,, \\ 2 & 2 W \, \in \, \in \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \infty \, \incolon$$

$$W _ {, r r } - W _ {, z z } + \frac { \lambda } { c ^ { 2 } } ( k _ {, z } W _ {, z } - k _ {, r } W _ {, r } ) + \frac { 2 W } { c ^ { 4 } } \left ( \Phi _ {, r } ^ { 2 } - \Phi _ {, z } ^ { 2 } \right ) + \frac { c ^ { 2 } } { 2 W } e ^ { 4 \Phi / c ^ { 2 } } \left ( A _ {, z } ^ { 2 } - A _ {, r } ^ { 2 } \right ) = 0 \,,$$

$$\frac { c ^ { 2 } } { 2 W } e ^ { 4 \Phi / c ^ { a } } A _ {, z } A _ {, r } - W _ {, r z } - \frac { 2 W } { c ^ { 4 } } \Phi _ {, r } \Phi _ {, z } + \frac { 1 } { c ^ { 2 } } ( k _ {, z } W _ {, r } - k _ {, r } W _ {, z } ) = 0 \,, \\ \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \end{cases}$$

$$\frac { \tau ^ { 2 } } { c ^ { 2 } } \left ( \Phi ^ { a } _ {, a } - k ^ {, a } _ {, a } \right ) - \frac { 1 } { 2 W } W ^ {, a } _ {, a } + \frac { 1 } { c ^ { 2 } } \frac { W ^ {, a } \Phi _ {, a } } { W } - \frac { 1 } { c ^ { 4 } } \Phi ^ { a } \Phi _ {, a } + \frac { c ^ { 2 } } { 4 W ^ { 2 } } e ^ { 4 \Phi / c ^ { 2 } } \left ( A _ {,, a } ^ { 2 } + A _ {, r } ^ { 2 } \right ) = \frac { 4 \pi G } { c ^ { 2 } } e ^ { 2 ( k - 2 \Phi ) / c ^ { 2 } } \left ( \rho _ { M } - \frac { p } { c ^ { 2 } } \right ) \,,$$

where a ∈ { r, z } . We note that (8) and (12) are the tt and rz components of (7) respectively, (11) and (13) are obtained from the R zz ± R rr equations, (10) is found by taking the combination

W -1 c -2 ( g ϕϕ R tt -2 g tϕ R tϕ + g tt R ϕϕ ), and finally (9) follows from the combination 2 c -2 ( R tϕ -AR tt ).

The system of PDEs is completed by the perfect fluid elements' equations of motion, which give

$$H \frac { p _ {, a } } { \rho _ { M } } e ^ { 2 ( k - \Phi ) / c ^ { 2 } } = \left [ \Phi _ {, a } + ( c ^ { 2 } A _ {, a } + 2 A \Phi _ {, a } ) \Omega + ( c ^ { 2 } A A _ {, a } + A ^ { 2 } \Phi _ {, a } ) \Omega ^ { 2 } \right ] e ^ { 2 \Phi / c ^ { 2 } } + \Omega ^ { 2 } \left ( W ^ { 2 } \frac { \Phi _ {, a } } { c ^ { 2 } } - W W _ {, a } \right ) e ^ { - 2 \Phi / c ^ { 2 } }, \ ( 1 4 )$$

We now take an expansion in powers of v/c to implement the nonrelativistic limit, where v is any relevant local velocity. We apply the self-consistent ansatz to solve (10) up to fourth order. From (1), and the definition of χ , we find A = r v D /c 2 + O ( v /c 3 3 ). Thus, by

$$W ( r, z ) = r + \mathcal { O } \left ( v ^ { 4 } / c ^ { 4 } \right ) \,, \, \text{ \quad \ \ } ( 1 5 )$$

$$H = - 1 + \frac { v _ { K } ^ { 2 } } { c ^ { 2 } } - 2 \frac { v _ { K } } { c } \frac { v _ { D } } { c } + \frac { 2 \, \Phi } { c ^ { 2 } } + \mathcal { O } \left ( v ^ { 4 } / c ^ { 4 } \right ) \,. \quad ( 1 6 ) \quad \text{pecte} \\ \quad \text{the p} \\ \quad \text{$\sim$1$} \quad.$$

Hence, by direct substitution of (15) into (8)-(14) we find

$$\Delta \Phi + \frac { 1 } { 2 r ^ { 2 } } | | \vec { \nabla } \L _ { D } | | ^ { 2 } = 4 \, \pi \, G \rho _ { _ { M } } + \mathcal { O } \left ( v ^ { 2 } / c ^ { 2 } \right ) \,, \quad ( 1 7 ) \quad \text{again} \quad \. \quad \ m o m { \bullet }$$

$$\hat { \Delta } L _ { D } & = 0 + \mathcal { O } \left ( v ^ { 2 } / c ^ { 2 } \right ) \,, & ( 1 8 ) & \quad \min _ { \min _ { \ } }$$

$$k _ {, r } = \frac { 1 } { 4 r } \left ( \L _ { D, z } ^ { 2 } - \L _ { D, r } ^ { 2 } \right ) + \mathcal { O } \left ( v ^ { 2 } / c ^ { 2 } \right ) \,, \quad \quad \left ( 1 9 \right ) \, \begin{array} { c } \text{ of th} \\ \text{l.h.s.} \end{array} \,.$$

$$k _ {, z } = - \frac { \ddot { 1 } } { 2 r } \left ( \L _ { D, z } \, \L _ { D, r } \right ) + \mathcal { O } \left ( v ^ { 2 } / c ^ { 2 } \right ) \,, \quad \ \ ( 2 0 ) \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

where glyph[suppress] L D := r v D is the quasilocal angular momentum per unit of mass associated with spacetime rotation, ∆ is the standard laplacian and ∆ := ˆ ∂ 2 r -(1 /r ∂ ) r + ∂ 2 z , is the Grad-Shafranov laplacian [9, 10, 13]. The number of equations reduces by one, as (8) is equivalent to (13) to the order considered. Furthermore, we see that the fluid effective pressure does not enter the EFE as a source term at this order of approximation.

Equation (17) is a general relativistic generalization of the Poisson equation, and coincides with it in the absence of spacetime rotation. The extra term in (17) can be interpreted as the rotational energy associated with the quasilocal angular momentum of the averaged background spacetime. This term is absent in the conventional Newtonian approximation in which the background is taken to be Minkowski space a priori . Furthermore, when moved to the r.h.s. of (17), it can be identified as an effective density, ρ Q = -||∇ ⃗ glyph[suppress] L D || 2 / (8 πGr 2 ). This represents a negative gravitational binding energy relative to the background [10].

Even for nonrelativistic dragging velocities spacetime rotation gives first-order corrections to the field equations. For fixed ρ M , (17) shows that the strength of the pseudo-Newtonian potential needed to sustain equilibrium decreases as the local rotational energy of the background geometry increases. Furthermore, the pseudoNewtonian potential in (17) is essential to accommodate nonrigid rotation of the perfect fluid source. Indeed, if we set Φ = 0 then (17)-(20) are the same equations that characterize a system of rigidly rotating dust [21-23]. As such this choice is unphysical, requiring an identification of ρ M purely with rotational energy.

At the same order, equations (14) reduce to

$$- \, \frac { p _ {, r } } { \rho _ { M } } = \Phi _ {, r } + \Omega \, L _ { D, r } - v _ { K } ^ { 2 } / r + \mathcal { O } \left ( v ^ { 2 } / c ^ { 2 } \right ) \,, \quad ( 2 1 ) \quad \text{where} \quad \text{$\text{with}$} \quad.$$

$$- \frac { \stackrel { r _ { M } } { p, z } } { \rho _ { M } } = \Phi _ {, z } + \Omega \L _ { D, z } + \mathcal { O } \left ( v ^ { 2 } / c ^ { 2 } \right ) \,. \quad \ \ ( 2 2 ) \quad \ [ 1 4, \colon \\ \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

Hence, the effective pressure of the fluid still plays a crucial role in determining the physics of the system, as expected. In (21) and (22), we recognize the gradient of the pseudo-Newtonian potential and the centrifugal acceleration in the term v 2 K /r . The conventional Newtonian equations follow in the case of negligible dragging ( v D ≪ v K ). However, more generally (21) and (22) once again show the crucial role that the quasilocal angular momentum of the regional background plays in determining the dynamics. For fixed ρ M and p , the magnitude of the pseudo-Newtonian potential needed to match the l.h.s. of (21) and (22) decreases linearly with the quasilocal angular momentum of the underlying averaged geometry. The quasilocal Newtonian limit defined here is thus realized by (17)-(22). As a first application of the quasilocal Newtonian limit, we derive the dragging velocity profile for a disc galaxy rotation curve supported exclusively by baryonic matter. The baryonic mass distribution in a disc galaxy can be written as ρ B = ρ b + ρ d , where ρ b and ρ d are the densities of the bulge and the disc, respectively.

We assume a spherical bulge component given by the Plummer density profile [24]

$$\rho _ { b } ( R ) = \frac { 3 R _ { b } ^ { 2 } M _ { b } } { 4 \pi \left ( R ^ { 2 } + R _ { b } ^ { 2 } \right ) ^ { 5 / 2 } } \,, \quad \quad ( 2 3 )$$

where R = √ r 2 + z 2 , R b is the scale parameter of the bulge and M b is the total bulge mass. The resulting circular velocity in the conventional Newtonian limit is

$$v _ { b } ( R ) = \sqrt { G M _ { b } R ^ { 2 } \left ( R ^ { 2 } + R _ { b } ^ { 2 } \right ) ^ { - 3 / 2 } } \,. \quad \ ( 2 4 )$$

The baryonic disc matter distribution is usually taken as ρ d ( r, z ) = Σ( r Z z ) ( ). The surface density of the disc is well approximated by the exponential profile

$$\Sigma ( r ) = \frac { M _ { d } } { 2 \pi r _ { d } ^ { 2 } } e ^ { - r / r _ { d } } \,,$$

where M d is the total disc mass and r d is the scale length in the radial direction for the galactic disc. The distribution along z , with ∫ Z z dz ( ) = 1, is assumed to be

$$Z ( z ) = \frac { 1 } { 2 z _ { d } } e ^ { - | z | / z _ { d } } \,,$$

where z d is the thickness scale length and z d ≪ r d . When the thickness z d tends to zero, we apply the conventional thin disc approximation, i.e., Z z ( ) = δ z ( ) [14, 25]. The Newtonian circular velocity field in the thin disc approximation, v d , is given by [14, 25]

$$v _ { _ { d } } ( r ) = \sqrt { \frac { G M _ { d } } { 2 r _ { _ { d } } ^ { 3 } } r ^ { 2 } \left [ I _ { 0 } \left ( \frac { r } { 2 r _ { _ { d } } } \right ) K _ { 0 } \left ( \frac { r } { 2 r _ { _ { d } } } \right ) - I _ { 1 } \left ( \frac { r } { 2 r _ { _ { d } } } \right ) K _ { 1 } \left ( \frac { r } { 2 r _ { _ { d } } } \right ) \right ] } \,,$$

where I { 0 1 , } and K { 0 1 , } are modified Bessel functions of the first and second kind.

To explain the observed rotation curves in the conventional Newtonian framework, a spherical cold dark matter (DM) halo must be included, so that the matter density is ρ M = ρ B + ρ DM , where ρ DM is typically given by the isothermal profile [9, 26, 27]

rotation curve corresponds to that of a disc galaxy, and that ρ M = ρ B . We will demonstrate that the quasilocal energy and angular momentum of the galaxy produce observations equivalent to those of a conventional cold dark matter halo.

$$\rho _ { D M } ( R ) = \frac { \rho _ { D M 0 } } { 1 + ( R / R _ { D M } ) ^ { 2 } } \,. \quad \quad ( 2 8 ) \quad \text{sol} \\ \text{qua}$$

Here R DM is the halo scale parameter, and ρ DM 0 is the maximum dark matter density. The dark matter halo contribution to the rotation curve, v h , is then [9]

$$v _ { h } ( R ) ^ { 2 } = 4 \pi G \, R _ { D M } ^ { 2 } \, \rho _ { D M 0 } \left ( 1 - \frac { \arctan \left ( R / R _ { D M } \right ) } { R / R _ { D M } } \right ) \cdot \begin{array} { c } \text{$\mathbb{m}$ +} \\ $ \text{$two the} \\ $ \text{$the sy} \\ $ \text{$soliti}$} \end{array}$$

Thus the circular velocity of the matter in Newtonian modelling of the disc galaxy, v N , on the equatorial plane, is given by

$$v _ { N } ( r, 0 ) = \sqrt { v _ { b } ( r, 0 ) ^ { 2 } + v _ { d } ( r ) ^ { 2 } + v _ { h } ( r, 0 ) ^ { 2 } } \,. \quad ( 3 0 ) \quad \text{ian} \quad \text{to sir}$$

In Fig. 1, we consider a Milky Way-like galaxy with M b = 0 8 . · 10 10 M , ⊙ R b = 0 8 kpc, . M d = 8 1 . · 10 10 M , ⊙ r d = 2 1 kpc, . R DM = 5 69 kpc and . ρ DM 0 = 6 77 . · 10 -22 kg/m . 3 We plot the predicted rotation curve v K ( r, 0), and the respective v b ( r, 0), v d ( r ) and v h ( r, 0).

FIG. 1. Conventional Newtonian rotation curve of the thin disc, v K ( r, 0), and the respective v b ( r, 0), v d ( r ) and v h ( r, 0), for a Milky Way-like galaxy with M b = 0 8 10 . · 10 M , ⊙ R b = 0 8 . kpc, M d = 8 1 . · 10 10 M , ⊙ r d = 2 1 kpc, . R DM = 5 69 kpc and . ρ DM 0 = 6 77 . · 10 -22 kg/m . 3

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00358v2-figure-f5d34d98-c423-48b7-9551-ceb0f2dd16e5.jpg)

To apply the general relativistic solution, let us now assume that v K = v N , i.e., that the inferred Newtonian

We begin by writing the pseudo-Newtonian potential as Φ = Φ N -Φ D , so that Φ N is given by the Newtonian solution for the chosen ρ B , while Φ D is defined as the solution of the Poisson equation sourced purely by the quasilocal rotational energy of the spacetime

$$\Delta \Phi _ { D } = \frac { | | \vec { \nabla } \L _ { D } | | ^ { 2 } } { 2 r ^ { 2 } } \,.$$

In the thin disc approximation a detailed calculation shows that in the general relativistic case the corrections to the pressure term do not affect the dragging velocity of the system (see Appendix A), allowing a self-consistent solution of (17), (21), and (22) for glyph[suppress] L D . Furthermore, a similar ansatz can be applied to the spherical bulge, where dark matter is not required to explain the observed dynamics, being well captured by conventional Newtonian models with purely baryonic matter. Therefore, to simplify the calculations, we can thus effectively take p r, z ( ) := p N ( r, z ) for the whole system, where p N ( r, z ) is the expected effective Newtonian pressure. We then use (21) and (22) to deduce

$$\Phi _ { D, r } = \Omega L _ { D, r } - \left ( v _ { K } ^ { 2 } - v _ { B } ^ { 2 } \right ) / r \,, \quad \ \ ( 3 2 )$$

$$\Phi _ { D, z } = \Omega L _ { D, z } \,,$$

where v B := √ v 2 b + v 2 d is the Newtonian contribution to the observed rotation curve from the baryonic mass.

Substituting (32), (33) in (31) it follows that

$$\sqrt { \Delta } \Phi _ { D } = \Omega _ {, r } \L _ { D, r } + 2 \Omega \frac { \L _ { D, r } } { r } + \Omega _ {, z } \L _ { D, z } - \frac { \left ( v _ { K } ^ { 2 } - v _ { B } ^ { 2 } \right ) _ {, r } } { r } \,,$$

where we have also used the quasilocal Newtonian limit of the ( tϕ ) EFE (18). Eqs. (31), (34) then give a firstorder nonlinear PDE for glyph[suppress] L D

$$\vec { \nabla } \L _ { D } \cdot \left [ \vec { \nabla } \L _ { D } - 2 \vec { \nabla } \left ( r v _ { K } \right ) \right ] + 2 r \left ( v _ { K } ^ { 2 } - v _ { B } ^ { 2 } \right ) _ {, r } = 0 \,. \ ( 3 5 )$$

We evaluate (35) on the galactic plane, z = 0, where due to the plane symmetry we have glyph[suppress] L D,z ( r, 0) = v K,z ( r, 0) = 0. Thus, the nonlinear PDE (35) reduces to an algebraic equation for glyph[suppress] L D,r on the galactic plane, with solutions given by

$$\text{now} _ { \text{ian} } \quad \L _ { D, r } = ( r v _ { K } ) _ {, r } \pm \sqrt { \left [ ( r v _ { K } ) _ {, r } \right ] ^ { 2 } - 2 r \left ( v _ { K } ^ { 2 } - v _ { B } ^ { 2 } \right ) _ {, r } } \,. \ ( 3 6 )$$

We take the minus sign in (36) since it is the only choice consistent with a vanishing dragging velocity, v D → 0, in the limit r →∞ , as expected for a disc galaxy. It then reduces to the Newtonian case for v K = v B . Furthermore, given the baryonic density distribution and the conventional Newtonian profile for v K ( r, 0), we can numerically solve (36) for v D ( r, 0). The resulting planar solution for ∂ r glyph[suppress] L D and its integral, glyph[suppress] L D , by (36) then completely fix glyph[suppress] L D throughout the spacetime via (35). The resulting glyph[suppress] L D ( r, z ) field then automatically satisfies the remaining EFE that were applied in the derivation of (35). Thus by solving for v D on the galactic plane, we fix its value over the whole spacetime.

In Fig. 2 we show the frame-dragging velocity profile, v D , which generates the same galaxy rotation curve of Fig. 1, assuming v K = v N . The frame-dragging speed reaches a maximum 42 2km/s at . r = 24 4kpc, . well within our nonrelativistic approximation. Furthermore, as expected: (i) beyond its maximum v D is monotonically decreasing with r ; and (ii) v D is negligible in the bulge, showing the self-consistency of the pressure ansatz used in the calculations.

FIG. 2. The profile for v D ( r, 0) needed to support the simulated rotation curve, v K ( r, 0), for a Milky Way-like galaxy with M b = 0 8 . · 10 10 M , ⊙ R b = 0 8 kpc, . M d = 8 1 . · 10 10 M ⊙ and r d = 2 1 kpc. . Here, the galaxy is composed exclusively of baryonic matter, i.e, ρ DM = 0.

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00358v2-figure-48ee4cb1-bc50-41de-a2a9-1f6deaed4dd3.jpg)

The new quasilocal Newtonian limit applies to stationary axisymmetric matter distributions with geometry (1). These symmetry assumptions mean that for a Milky Way-like disc galaxy the approximations here, along with the exact solutions [10] hold on time scales, 10 7 &lt; t &lt; ∼ ∼ 10 9 yr. In particular, in this approximation we neglect the effective anisotropic quasilocal pressure from gravitational shear between the radial and angular directions. Volume-preserving deformations of the effective fluid elements driven by this term could play a role in generating galactic spiral arms and bars. However, these break the axial symmetry and stationarity of the models considered here, and require further development.

Likewise, equations (17)-(22) will not apply during galaxy formation, and therefore do not explain how disc galaxies form in a cold dark matter free environment. The purpose of all model building is to create the best superstructure upon which more complex problems can be tackled in future. In our view, we have established key elements of that superstructure by clearly identifying the relevant physical quantities. The precise definition of finite infinity [2-4, 10] provides a mathematical framework for further exploring the quasilocal Newtonian limit, in settings from the early Universe through to highly dynamical astrophysical systems. The interplay of quasilocal gravitational energy and angular momentum must play a key crucial role.

In summary, we have shown that general relativity admits a novel self-consistent low energy limit: the quasilocal Newtonian limit. In this limit the phenonomenology of collisionless dark matter for disc galaxies can be reproduced by the regional gravitational energy and angular momentum of the average spacetime geometry.

This discovery has far-reaching consequences for cosmology, astrophysics and particle physics. Indeed, many interesting questions are now opened up. Within the given realization of the quasilocal Newtonian limit, disc galaxy stability, gravitational lensing and fits to observational datasets must be addressed to definitively test the new paradigm. We note that preliminary results on strong gravitational lensing are promising [9]. Comparisons with MOND phenomenology potentially open the prospect not only of placing MOND within the theoretical framework of general relativity, but also of providing insights into the development of this important new physical limit of Einstein's theory. Finally, in light of our results, the phenomenology of dark matter in the early universe, in the dynamics of galaxy clusters, and in other astrophysical environments should now be reconsidered and further investigated.

Acknowledgments DLW is supported by Marsden Fund grant M1271 administered by the Royal Society of New Zealand, Te Ap¯ arangi. We thank Davide Astesiano, Luca Ciotti, Sergio Cacciatori, John Forbes, Vittorio Gorini, Christopher Harvey-Hawes, Frederic Hessman, Morag Hills, Emma Johnson, Zachary Lane, Ryan Ridden-Harper, Antonia Seifert, Chris Stevens, Shreyas Tiruvaskar and Michael Williams for useful discussions.

∗ marco.galoppo@pg.canterbury.ac.nz

† federico.re@unimib.it

‡ david.wiltshire@canterbury.ac.nz

- [1] L. B. Szabados, Living Rev. Relativ. 12 , 4 (2009).
- [2] D. L. Wiltshire, New J. Phys. 9 , 377 (2007).
- [3] D. L. Wiltshire, Phys. Rev. D 78 , 084032 (2008).
- [4] D. L. Wiltshire, Class. Quantum Grav. 28 , 164006 (2011).

- [5] T. Buchert, Gen. Relativ. Gravitation 32 , 105 (2000).
- [6] T. Buchert, P. Mourier, and X. Roy, Gen. Relativ. Gravitation 52 , 27 (2020).
- [7] D. Astesiano, S. L. Cacciatori, V. Gorini, and F. Re, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 , 554 (2022).
- [8] D. Astesiano, S. Cacciatori, M. Dotti, F. Haardt, and F. Re, arXiv:2204.05143 (2022), 10.48550/arXiv.2204.05143.
- [9] F. Re and M. Galoppo, arXiv:2403.03227 (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03227.
- [10] M. Galoppo and D. L. Wiltshire, arXiv:2406.14157 (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2406.14157.
- [11] D. Astesiano and M. L. Ruggiero, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022), 10.1103/physrevd.106.044061.
- [12] D. Astesiano and M. L. Ruggiero, Phys. Rev. D 106 , L121501 (2022).
- [13] M. L. Ruggiero, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02, 025 (2024).
- [14] L. Ciotti, Astrophys. J. 936 , 180 (2022).
- [15] M. Bruni, D. B. Thomas, and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D 89 , 044010 (2014).
- [16] D. B. Thomas, M. Bruni, and D. Wands, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 452 , 1727 (2015).
- [17] M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J. 270 , 365 (1983).
- [18] B. Famaey and S. McGaugh, Living Rev. Relativ. 15 , 10 (2012).
- [19] H. Bondi, Cosmology (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1961).
- [20] J. Biˇ´k, J. Katz, ca and D. Lynden-Bell, Phys. Rev. D 76 , 063501 (2007).
- [21] H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M. MacCallum, C. Hoenselaers, and E. Herlt, Exact Solutions of Einstein's Field Equations , 2nd ed. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2003).
- [22] H. Balasin and D. Grumiller, International Journal of Modern Physics D 17 , 475 (2008).
- [23] W. Beordo, M. Crosta, M. Lattanzi, P. Re Fiorentin, and A. Spagna, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 529 , 4681 (2024).
- [24] E. Pouliasis, P. D. Matteo, and M. Haywood, Astron. Astrophys. 598 , A66 (2017).
- [25] K. C. Freeman, Astrophys. J. 160 , 811 (1970).
- [26] S. M. Kent, Astron. J. 91 , 1301 (1986).
- [27] K. G. Begeman, A. H. Broeils, and R. H. Sanders, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 249 , 523 (1991).
- [28] J. Binney and S. Tremaine, Galactic dynamics ('Princeton University Press', 1987).
- [29] M. Persic, P. Salucci, and F. Stel, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 281 , 27 (1996).

## Appendix A

dragging velocity, i.e., Eqn. (36) is independent of them. We start by considering p = p N + ˜, where ˜ is the presp p sure difference between the purely Newtonian and the full GR cases. Then (21) and (22) are found to take the form

$$\Phi _ { D, r } = \Omega L _ { D, r } - \frac { v _ { h } ^ { 2 } } { \tilde { n } } - \frac { \tilde { p } _ {, r } } { \rho _ { d } } \,, \quad \quad ( \text{A.1} )$$

$$\bar { \ } D, r \, \stackrel { \cdots - \nu, \cdot } { \ } \psi _ { D, z } = \Omega \L _ { D, z } - \frac { \tilde { p } _ {, z } } { \rho _ { d } } \,. \, \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \$$

Therefore, we have from (18) and (31)

$$\Delta \Phi _ { D } = & \frac { \L L _ { D, r } ^ { 2 } + \L L _ { D, z } ^ { 2 } } { 2 r ^ { 2 } } = \Omega _ {, r } \L L _ { D, r } + 2 \Omega \frac { \L L _ { D, r } } { r } + \Omega _ {, z } \L L _ { D, z } \\ _ { r. \ D } & - \frac { \Delta \tilde { p } } { \rho _ { d } } - \frac { ( v _ { h } ^ { 2 } ) _ {, r } } { r } + \frac { \tilde { p } _ {, r } \rho _ { d, r } + \tilde { p } _ {, z } \rho _ { d, z } } { \rho _ { d } ^ { 2 } } \,, \quad ( A. 3 )$$

The thin disc is obtained for vanishing pressure, i.e. when both p N ( r, z ) and ˜( p r, z ) tends to zero in L 1 ( R 3 ). Indeed, in the Newtonian case it is known that for ρ d ( r, z ) = [Σ( r // ) 2 πz d ] η r, z/z ( d ), p N does not tend to zero pointwise, but is rather defined as [28]

$$p _ { N } ( r, z ) = \frac { \pi } { 2 } \, G \, \Sigma ( r ) ^ { 2 } \, \eta ( r, z / z _ { d } ) \,, \quad \text{ (A.4)}$$

where

$$\eta ( r, 0 ) \equiv 1, \ \text{ and } \ \int _ { - \infty } ^ { + \infty } \eta ( r, s ) d s < \infty \,, \quad ( A. 5 )$$

Analogously, we will assume that the GR correction on the pressure tends to zero as

$$\tilde { p } ( r, z ) \coloneqq \tilde { p } _ { 0 } ( r ) z _ { d } ^ { \alpha } \tilde { \eta } ( r, z / z _ { d } ) \text{ \quad \ \ (A.6)}$$

with ˜ behaving as η η and ˜ p 0 having the dimensions of a pressure divided by length to the power α . From (A.5) and (A.6), we see that to have || ˜ p || L 1 -→ z d → 0 0, it must be

α &gt; -1. Thus, on the galactic plane we have

$$\tilde { p } _ {, z z } ( r, 0 ) = \tilde { p } _ { 0 } ( r ) z _ { d } ^ { \alpha - 2 } \tilde { \eta } ^ { \prime \prime } ( r, 0 ) = \frac { \tilde { \eta } _ { 0 } ^ { \prime \prime } ( r ) } { z _ { d } ^ { 2 } } \tilde { p } ( r, 0 ) \,, \quad ( \text{A.7} )$$

Here we show that for a thin disc the general relativistic corrections to the pressure do not affect the frame- where the prime indicates differentiation w.r.t. z . We can now substitute the previous result in (A.3) evaluated on the galactic plane to obtain

$$\frac { L _ { D, r } ^ { 2 } } { 2 r ^ { 2 } } = & \frac { L _ { D, r } } { r } ( r v _ { K } ) _ {, r } - \frac { ( v _ { h } ^ { 2 } ) _ {, r } } { r } + \frac { z _ { d } ^ { 2 } \dot { p } _ { 0 } ( r ) \Sigma ^ { \prime } ( r ) / ( 2 \pi z _ { d } ) } { \Sigma ( r ) ^ { 2 } / ( 4 \pi ^ { 2 } z _ { d } ^ { 2 } ) } - \frac { z _ { d } ^ { 2 } \ddot { p } _ { 0 } ( r ) + z _ { d } ^ { 2 } \dot { p } _ { 0 } ( r ) / r + z _ { d } ^ { \alpha - 2 } \dot { \eta } _ { 0 } ^ { \prime \prime } ( r ) \dot { p } _ { 0 } ( r ) } { \Sigma ( r ) / ( 2 \pi z _ { d } ) } \\ = & \frac { L _ { D, r } ( r v _ { K } ) _ {, r } - \frac { ( v _ { h } ^ { 2 } ) _ {, r } } { r } + \frac { 1 } { \Sigma ( r ) } \left [ z _ { d } ^ { \alpha + 1 } \left ( 2 \pi \frac { \Sigma ^ { \prime } ( r ) } { \Sigma ( r ) } \dot { p } _ { 0 } ( r ) - \frac { 1 } { 2 } \ddot { p } _ { 0 } ( r ) - \frac { \dot { p } _ { 0 } ( r ) } { 2 r } \right ) - \frac { z _ { d } ^ { \alpha - 1 } } { 2 \pi } \dot { \eta } _ { 0 } ^ { \prime \prime } ( r ) \dot { p } _ { 0 } ( r ) \right ] \,,$$

̸

namely, ˜ ( η ′′ 0 r ) = 0 , α = 1. To check whether this case is realised we start by noting that a condition on the profile of ˜ around p z = 0 can be obtained from the integrability condition of (21) and (22). Indeed, we find

̸

$$\underset { \text{re-at} } { \text{ms} } \underset { \text{for-at} } { \text{ms} } \left ( \frac { \tilde { p } _ {, r } \rho _ { d, z } - \tilde { p } _ {, z } \rho _ { d, r } } { \rho _ { d } ^ { 2 } } = \frac { ( v _ { h } ^ { 2 } ) _ {, z } } { r } + \Omega _ {, r } \L _ { D, z } - \Omega _ {, z } \L _ { D, r } \right ) ( A. 9 )$$

We now take ∂ z (A.9) on the galactic plane, so that ρ d,z ( r, 0) = ˜ p ,z ( r, 0) = Ω ,z ( r, 0) = glyph[suppress] L D,z ( r, 0) = 0, to get where the dot indicates the differentiation w.r.t. r for single-variable functions. We note that the term in z α +1 d necessarily vanishes given the constraint α &gt; -1, whilst the term proportional to z α -1 d entails more subtlety. Indeed, for α &gt; 1, or if ˜ is such that ˜ η η ′′ 0 ( r ) ≡ 0, then this term also vanishes, and thus we find exactly (36). Moreover, the combination ˜ η ′′ 0 ( r ) = 0 , α &lt; 1 is physically forbidden, since it would give divergent frame-dragging at all radii, (i.e., glyph[suppress] L D,r ( r, 0) diverges at each point). Therefore, we are left to consider the last possible combination,

$$\frac { \tilde { p } _ {, r } \rho _ { d, z z } - \tilde { p } _ {, z z } \rho _ { d, r } } { \rho _ { d } ^ { 2 } } = \frac { ( v _ { h } ^ { 2 } ) _ {, r } } { r ^ { 2 } } + \Omega _ {, r } \left ( \frac { \L _ { D, r } } { r } - \L _ {, r r } \right ) - v _ { K, z z } \frac { \L _ { D, r } } { r } \,,$$

where we have used the EFE (18) and the spherical symmetry of v h ( R ), so that ( v 2 h ) ,zz = ( v 2 h ) ,r /r when evalu- ated on the galactic plane. Furthermore, we know from the Newtonian dynamics that v 2 d is given by [28]

$$v _ { d } ^ { 2 } ( r, z ) = \frac { G M } { 2 r _ { d } ^ { 3 } } r ^ { 2 } \left [ I _ { 0 } \left ( \frac { r } { 2 r _ { d } } \right ) K _ { 0 } \left ( \frac { r } { 2 r _ { d } } \right ) - I _ { 1 } \left ( \frac { r } { 2 r _ { d } } \right ) K _ { 1 } \left ( \frac { r } { 2 r _ { d } } \right ) \right ] - 2 \pi G \frac { r } { r _ { d } } \Sigma ( r ) f ( r, z ; z _ { d } ) \,,$$

with lim z d → 0 f ( r, z ; z d ) = | z | + O z ( 2 ), that is lim z d → 0 f ,zz ( r, z ; z d ) = 2 δ z ( ) + O z ( 0 ). Therefore, we can write

Moreover, since v 2 K = v 2 d + v 2 h we directly obtain

$$f _ {, z z } ( r, z ; z _ { d } ) = \frac { 2 } { z _ { d } } \bar { \eta } ( r, z / z _ { d } ) \,, \quad \text{ (A.12)}$$

with some suitable

$$\int _ { - \infty } ^ { + \infty } \bar { \eta } ( r, s ) d s = 1 \,. \quad \quad ( A. 1 3 ) _ { 1 } \quad \text{on}$$

on the galactic plane. Thus we can then write

$$v _ { K, z z } ( r, 0 ) = - \frac { 1 } { 2 v _ { K } ( r, 0 ) } 2 \pi G \frac { r } { r _ { d } } \Sigma ( r ) \frac { 2 } { z _ { d } } \bar { \eta } ( r, 0 ) + \frac { v _ { h } ( r, 0 ) v _ { h, r } ( r, 0 ) } { r v _ { K } ( r, 0 ) } = \frac { 1 } { v _ { K } ( r, 0 ) } \left [ - 2 \pi G \frac { r \Sigma ( r ) \bar { \eta } ( r, 0 ) } { r _ { d } z _ { d } } + \frac { ( v _ { h } ^ { 2 } ) _ {, r } ( r, 0 ) } { 2 r } \right ].$$

Now, we combine the profiles for ρ , p, d ˜ and v K , and sub- stitute in (A.10), whilst choosing η r, s ( ) := 1 / cosh s in order to have a twice differentiable function. We find

$$- \frac { 2 \pi z _ { d } ^ { - 1 } } { \Sigma ( r ) } \left [ \dot { \dot { p } } _ { 0 } ( r ) + \tilde { \eta } _ { 0 } ^ { \prime \prime } ( r ) \tilde { p } _ { 0 } ( r ) \frac { \Sigma ^ { \prime } ( r ) } { \Sigma ( r ) } \right ] & = \frac { - [ z _ { d } ^ { 2 } \dot { p } _ { 0 } ( r ) \, \Sigma ( r ) / ( 2 \pi z _ { d } ^ { 3 } ) + z _ { d } ^ { - 2 } \dot { \tilde { p } } _ { 0 } ^ { \prime \prime } ( r ) \dot { p } _ { 0 } ( r ) \, \Sigma ^ { \prime } ( r ) / ( 2 \pi z _ { d } ) ] } { \Sigma ( r ) ^ { 2 } / ( 4 \pi ^ { 2 } z _ { d } ^ { 2 } ) } \\ & = \frac { ( v _ { k } ^ { 2 } ), r } { r ^ { 2 } } + \Omega, r \left ( \frac { L _ { D, r } } { r } - L, r, r \right ) - \frac { 1 } { v _ { K } } \left ( \frac { v _ { k } v _ { h, r } } { r } - 2 \pi G z _ { d } ^ { - 1 } \frac { r \Sigma ( r ) \dot { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \that { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \t \tilde { \t \tilde { \t \tilde { \t \tilde { \tilde { \t \tilde { \t \tilde { \t \tilde { \t \t | \t | \t | } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } ) } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } { } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } }. } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } \ } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } _ } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } }, } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } ( } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } | } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } } {................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ \.......................................................................................................................................................................................................,....................................................................................................................................................................................................... |................................................$$

$$v _ { K, z z } = \frac { v _ { d } v _ { d, z z } + v _ { h } v _ { h, z z } } { v _ { K } } \,, \quad \quad ( \text{A.14} )$$

We note that (A.16) can be satisfied for z d → 0 only if α = 0 and

$$\dot { \tilde { p } } _ { 0 } ( r ) + \tilde { \eta } _ { 0 } ^ { \prime \prime } ( r ) \tilde { p } _ { 0 } ( r ) \frac { \Sigma ^ { \prime } ( r ) } { \Sigma ( r ) } = - G \frac { \Sigma ( r ) ^ { 2 } \bar { \eta } _ { 0 } ( r ) \L _ { D, r } ( r, 0 ) } { r _ { d } r v _ { K } ( r, 0 ) } \,. \quad \text{ for a }.$$

nonsingular frame-dragging. This confirms that (A.8) reduces to (36) for z d → 0, so that the general relativistic corrections to the pressure play no role in our calculations for a thin disc galaxy.

Therefore, by substituting α = 0 in (A.8), we necessarily conclude that ˜ ( η ′′ 0 r ) ≡ 0, for any physical system with

Finally, interestingly this result is true despite the fact that the pressure in the full GR system differs from the Newtonian case, being given by

$$p ( r, z ) = p _ { N } + \tilde { p } = \frac { \pi } { 2 } G \frac { \Sigma ( r ) ^ { 2 } } { \cosh { ( z / z _ { d } ) } } - \frac { G } { r _ { d } } \tilde { \eta } ( r, z / z _ { d } ) \int \frac { d r } { r } \bar { \eta } _ { 0 } ( r ) \frac { \Sigma ( r ) ^ { 2 } \mathbb { L } _ { D, r } ( r, 0 ) } { v _ { K } ( r, 0 ) } \,.$$

However, such corrections do not affect our results as we have proved that they play no role for an infinitely thin disc - a common assumption in galaxy models: see, e.g., [29] and discussion therein.
Marco Galoppo Federico Re David L. Wiltshire
Quasilocal Newtonian limit of general relativity and galactic dynamics
A new Newtonian limit of general relativity is established for stationary
axisymmetric gravitationally bound differentially rotating matter distributions
with internal pressure. The self-consistent coupling of quasilocal
gravitational energy and angular momentum leads to a modified Poisson equation.
The coupled equations of motion of the effective fluid elements are also
modified, with quasilocal angular momentum and frame-dragging leading to novel
dynamics. The solutions of the full system reproduce the phenonomenology of
collisionless dark matter for disc galaxies. The demonstration that general
relativity possesses a new alternative low-energy limit different from the
conventional post-Newtonian limit may have major consequences for all
gravitational physics on galactic and cosmological scales.