(Guest post by Dr. Jörg Dabringhausen, Charles University in Prague, Dec. 18th 2020)
The hypothesis of dark matter in galaxies was originally brought up by observations. Zwicky (1933) first found out that galaxies were usually moving too fast to stay in the observed galaxy clusters, if the luminous matter was all there is in galaxies. With “luminous matter”, essentially all stars were meant. Stars are understood well in terms of how much mass in a star leads to a certain light strength, or luminosity. But if the light emitted by the galaxies in a galaxy cluster is translated to a stellar population similar to the stellar population of the Milky Way, the stellar population would not have enough mass by a factor of a couple hundreds to keep the galaxies bound to the cluster. Thus, the galaxy clusters would have dispersed billions of years ago, and today we would be surrounded by a uniform distribution of galaxies. But that is not what we see: galaxies are still in galaxy clusters today.
But the problem was not only with galaxy clusters. Rubin & Ford (1970) found out, that the Andromeda Galaxy rotates so fast, that its stars would disperse if only the standard gravity would keep them together. And the Anromeda galaxy turned out be the rule rather than the exception; all spiral galaxies that were studied later on showed similar trends (for example Rubin et al. 1980). So, not only galaxy clusters would disperse, but also the (spiral) galaxies themselves. It is like the riders (that is the stars) on a merry-go-round (that is the galaxy). Forces keep the riders on circles around the merry-go-round, and if the forces for some reason become weaker or cease to exist (for example because the link between the rider and the merry-go-round breaks), the riders would move away from it. But again, this is against our observations: There are large spiral galaxies everywhere around us (including our Milky Way), and the stars in them move on stable orbits.
In general, the problem of missing mass in galaxies is nowadays omnipresent. It arises because there are different ways to estimate masses in astronomy. One such way is to make educated guesses about the age and the composition of the stellar population of a galaxy, and calculate from there how much units of mass it should have per unit of luminosity. Astronomers call this a stellar mass estimate. Another way is to measure the radius of a galaxy and how fast stars move on average in it, then make some educated guesses about the dynamics of the galaxy, and calculate the ratio of mass to light from there. Astronomers call this a dynamical mass estimate. Ideally, stellar and dynamical mass would agree for the same galaxy, because the galaxy only has one real mass (within uncertainties, of course). In practice however, the dynamical mass is usually larger than the stellar mass, and the factor ranges from slightly above one to 10000 or so. Apparently, the error lies somewhere in the guesswork leading to the two different mass estimates. Astronomers tried to solve the problem of the missing visible matter in two general ways: Either by adding more matter, so that the matter in total would produce the observed gravitational force, or by changing the laws of gravity themselves and saying that the visible matter is all the matter there is in galaxies.
Adding more matter is mathematically the simpler solution, which is also why many people favoured it at first. The gravitational force is then linear in the critical range of values, that is weak to moderate gravity. This means that if there is twice the matter, there is also twice the gravitational force, independent of the total amount of matter there is. Note that from this point of view, the type of matter does not matter, as long as it is invisible, or nearly so. Also the Earth is near invisible next to the Sun, even though they both consist basically of the same kind of matter (that is atoms, not something exotic). It is only a matter of temperature that makes the Sun brighter than the Earth. Indeed, there was a theory that the missing matter are earth-like bodies (that is free-floating planets and brown dwarfs), until the needed quantity of those bodies was observationally excluded. More and more alternatives for the additional matter were excluded as well, so that we are today at the Lambda-Cold-Dark-Matter Model (LCDM-model) for this class of models. However, the LCDM-model requires exotic dark matter beyond the standard model of particles. But this kind of matter has not been discovered yet, including in the largest accelerators like CERN. Nevertheless, this first group of physicists still believes the LCDM-model to be true in general (even though there are some changes to be made) and therefore they continue to search for the so far still hypothetic dark-matter particle.
The second group of physicists rather correct the law of gravity than adding a hypothetic particle beyond the standard model of particle physics. It is like whichever way you go, you have to expand a theory which has been extremely succesful so far: you either have to give up the standard model of particle physics in order to save the LCDM-model, or have to have to give up general relativity, with Newtonian gravity as its limiting case for weak and moderate gravity. This new theory of gravity is, unlike Newtonian gravity, not linear in the critial range. This means that twice the matter does not necessarily mean twice the gravity when the gravitational force is weak enough. This has a funny consequence, which is in contrast to our daily-life experience, namely that the same amount of matter suddently looks like it becomes more gravitating when you spread it out thinly enough. Lüghausen et al. (2015) therefore called it “phantom dark matter”, because this dark matter is a mirage that disappears when the real matter is put close enough together. (Of course, inside the Solar system, the matter must be on average dense enough for the gravitational force to be linear – otherwise we would not be able to send spaceships with high precision to other planets using Newtonian gravity.) This second set of theories leads to Modified Newtonian Dynamics or Milgromian Dynamics (MOND).
Here, I will concentrate on the “missing” matter of elliptical galaxies – “missing” in the sense that there is usually less matter if seen from a stellar perspective than if seen from a dynamical perspective on the same galaxy. Are there alternatives to adding exotic dark matter to the visible matter, and thus supportive to the second group of physicists?
First of all, let’s start with the question of what an elliptical galaxy is. A very short answer would be that they are more or less like the spiral galaxies, but without the disks that contain the spirals. So, only the central bulge is there, and hence, they are called ellipitical because of their elliptical shape. That central bulge can however be very massive, and the most massive elliptical galaxies are even more massive than the most massive spiral galaxies (bulge and disk of the spirals together)!
Going a bit more to the details of elliptical galaxies, they show however some diversity in their mass and radius. I will distingish them into three different kinds of objects, namely ultra-compact dwarf galaxies (UCDs), conventional elliptical galaxies (Es) and dwarf spheroidal galaxies (dSphs), and discuss the invisible matter in each of them. We will see that the invisible matter is just a mirage in some of them, while others contain really some more matter than originally accounted for, but not the exotic dark matter predicted by the LCDM-model.
UCDs (Figures 1 and 2) stand a little apart from the other elliptical galaxies, and some doubt that some of them really are galaxies, and not just very massive star clusters. The reason lies in their compactness, which makes them look much like very massive globular clusters. However, their compactness also places them deeply in the Newtonian regime, so there is literally no room for the phantom dark matter of MOND. Yet, it was claimed that they may contain dark matter (see for example by Drinkwater et al 2004 and Hasegan et al. 2005).
The reason for that is that at the turn of the millenium, it was popular among atronomers that the stellar initial mass function (IMF) is universal (see for example Kroupa 2001). What this means is that all stellar systems formed with a fixed ratio of massive stars to light stars, and only the age of the stars and their chemical composition may change from stellar system to stellar system. This is not to say that people back then were unaware of the influence that, for example, different temperatures and chemical composition had on the process of star formation. Rather, they were looking for different IMFs, but did not find supportable evidence for them in resolved stellar populations. However, when modeling a UCD (or any other kind of stellar system) with the universal IMF, there is maximum ratio between stellar mass and stellar light that can be reached for any reasonable stellar ages and chemical compositions. Nevertheless, there are many UCDs above that limit, and Dabringhausen et al. (2008) showed that this is not just a statistical uncertainty. So, there must be a reason for this unseen mass, and the exotic dark matter that comes with the LCDM-model was a proposition.
However, Murray (2009) voiced serious doubts that the LCDM-model could accomodate enough exotic dark matter inside the tiny radii of UCDs. This is even though the dark-matter halos around the galaxies can be very massive in the LCDM-model. However, the LCDM-model then also predicts that the halos would be very extended, and thus the density (that is mass per volume) of the dark-matter halo would be very thin. So, the total mass of the dark-matter halo may be gigantic, but the fraction of its mass inside a UCD would be tiny because of the small radius of the UCD, and this tiny amount of dark matter inside the UCD would not influence the internal dynamics of the UCD much. Thus, in short, it is not the exotic dark matter of the LCDM-model that increases the mass of the UCDs. It is then likely “conventional” matter, for example from a different IMF. Thus, the word “universal” IMF is then misleading because the IMF is in fact not universal, but “standard” IMF or “canonical” IMF are pretty good replacements. After all, this IMF pretty much seems to be the standard in our immediate surroundings (in an astromical sense); that is regions whose mixture of chemical elements is like that of the Sun and which do not form so many stars at present.
In UCDs, the conditions under which star formation took place were probably far away from those we know to produce the standard IMF. Thus, Dabringhausen et al. (2009) proposed that the UCDs may have formed with an IMF that had a different shape than the standard IMF, namely one that formed more massive stars. (IMFs that have more massive stars than they should have according to the standard IMF are called “top-heavy”.) These massive stars are known to be short-lived, and after they have burned all their nuclear fuel, they leave remnants which produce little or no light compared to their mass. These remnants exist of course in any aged stellar population, but if the IMF had more massive stars once, it has more stellar remnants now. The stellar remnants thus increase the ratio between mass and light, and make a UCD “darker”. Dabringhausen et al. (2012) also tried an alternative way to detect those additional stellar remnants by looking for systems, where a stellar remnant accretes matter from a companion star. Those stellar systems become distinctive X-ray sources, and are thus countable. They compared the numbers they found in UCDs to the numbers they found in globular clusters (that is stellar systems more or less like UCDs, but less massive), and they found more X-ray sources in UCDs than they expected. This as well could indicate that there are more high-mass stars per low-mass stars in UCDs. Based also on their works, Marks et al. (2012) proposed an IMF that changes with the mass of the stellar system (that is from globular clusters to UCDs) and with the chemical composition. Thus, they gave up the notion of the universal IMF, but explained changes in the ratio between mass and light in UCDs with changes in their IMFs.
Another way to increase the mass of UCDs, but not their emission of light, are central massive black holes. In a black hole so much mass is kept, that nothing that comes too close to it can escape it, not even light. Black holes are a prediction of general relativity and known to exist. For example, very massive stars become black holes when all their nuclear fuel is burned, and the pressure from stellar radiation no longer opposes the pull of gravity. Or, as another example, there is a massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, and many other galaxies as well, even though it is less clear than for massive stars how those came to be. (This year’s Nobel Prize for physics was about the detection of this central black hole.) But if massive black holes are common at the centers of galaxies, why can’t UCDs have them as well? However, a massive central black hole is easy to overlook at the distance of known UCDs. That is because at the distance of UCDs, the stars look like they are almost located at a single point in space, whereas the mass of the central massive black hole is precisely located a this single point. Thus, if seen from Earth, there is not much difference in the distribution of matter, while the central massive black hole would still add its mass to the mass of the stellar population. Therefore, only by careful observations with the telescopes with the best optical resolution, one has a chance to detect them. Nevertheless, massive central black holes were indeed proposed as a solution for the problem of the missing mass in UCDs; for example by Mieske et al. (2013) and Janz et al. (2015). Seth et al. (2014) then observationally confirmed a massive central black hole in a UCD for the first time. Later, massive black holes were also discovered in other UCDs, see for example Afanasiev et al. (2018).
Naturally, also a mixture of non-standard IMFs and central massive black holes is possible to explain why UCDs are so massive for their light. However, what is important here is that there are less far-fetched alternatives to exotic dark matter in UCDs.
2.) Conventional elliptical galaxies
The conventional elliptical galaxies are not only usually more massive than the UCDs, but also far more extended. What I mean with “conventional” is that they were among the first galaxies to be identified as galaxies – this was in the 1920ies, when people like Hubble first discovered that some “nebulae” are not just gas clouds inside the Milky Way, but distant stellar islands just like the Milky Way. It is unclear what mass exactly is required for an elliptical galaxy in order to be coventional, perhaps 108 Solar masses or so. This unclearity is because there is an extension of elliptical galaxies to even lower masses, which are however not (compact, star-cluster-like) UCDs, but (extended, galaxy-like) dwarf Spheroidal galaxies (dSphs). However, there are some specialities on dSphs about dark matter and its seeming existence, and therefore I will treat them in an own section. What I will not do, though, is to distinguish the elliptical galaxies into dwarf elliptical galaxies and elliptical galaxies proper, because this distinction in merely historical in my eyes (see also Ferguson & Binggeli 1994 about this). The most massive of all galaxies (about 1012 Solar masses) are conventional elliptical galaxies, too.
So, how much exotic dark matter do elliptical galaxies contain, if any? Cappellari et al. (2006), for instance, found out that the conventional elliptical galaxies they observed had on average 30 percent too much mass for the IMF they assumed. They suggested that the missing mass could be the dark matter predicted by the LCDM-model. However, for this finding, they also assumed that the standard IMF is universal for all star-forming regions. Tortora et al. (2014) later tried to fix this without exotic dark matter, but MOND. They also failed with a universal IMF, but not if the IMF was changing with the mass of the galaxy. So, the real question is: Can the IMF change with galaxy mass or is the standard IMF also the universal IMF?
For answering this question, let’s look at star clusters, which are the building blocks of galaxies. Could a star cluster have a star more massive than the cluster itself? Of course not. Actually, Weidner et al. (2010) found out that the mass of the most massive star of a star cluster is much lower still. An impressive example of this was observed by Hsu et al (2012): They compared a large cluster of some mass with several adjacent small star clusters with the same mass in total. All the other parameters like age, chemical composition, and so on are the same, just how the total mass of the stars is bundled is different. However, the massive star cluster has heavier stars than the several small star clusters. This would not be a problem by itself, if the overall star formation was the same in all galaxies; that is when all galaxies form the same number of light star clusters per massive star cluster. But this is not the case. Weidner et al. (2004) found that the mass of the most massive cluster that can form in a galaxy depends on its star formation rate; that is how many stars form in a galaxy per time unit. Low-mass elliptical galaxies have low star formation rates and massive elliptical galaxies have high star formation rates. Thus, low-mass conventional elliptical galaxies have a lack of massive stars. This already is an argument against a universal IMF in all star clusters and in all galaxies.
The galaxies with the highest star formation rates (that is also the most massive galaxies) produce also star clusters in the mass range globular clusters and UCDs. Now, lets assume that these most massive star clusters are in fact UCDs and that these UCDs have IMFs with more massive stars per low-mass stars than “normal” star clusters (see the section about UCDs). Then the real IMF deviates from the once-thought universal IMF not only in low-mass star clusters (by not having any massive stars), but also in high-mass star clusters (by having too many massive stars). Now, remember what we have said about IMFs with more massive stars than the standard IMF: when they grow old, they produce less light per unit mass than the standard IMF. Or when a certain amout of light is observed, a stellar population with more massive stars and a certain age must have more mass to produce it. The stellar populations of elliptical galaxies are usually that old that the massive stars (which are short-lived) have already evolved into dark stellar remnants, and only the light stars continue to shine. So, if the IMF behaves with the star formation rate of the galaxies like it is assumed nowadays (see for example Kroupa & Weidner 2003 or Fontanot et al 2017), then the low-mass elliptical galaxies have a little less mass than assumed with the standard IMF for their light, and the massive elliptical have a little more mass than assumed with the standard IMF. This goes up to about twice the mass for the most massive conventional elliptical galaxies, and the point where the mass estimate is equal to that for the standard IMF is at approximately 109 Solar masses. Thus, for most conventional elliptical galaxies, the mass estimates are above the mass estimates for the standard IMF, and the “missing” mass is about the mass detected by Cappellari based on the standard IMF. (See also Dabringhausen et al. 2016 if you want to follow the brightness of elliptical galaxies with their mass, and Dabringhausen 2019 if you wish to go deeper on elliptical galaxies and non-standard IMFs). Thus, again like with UCDs, there is an alternative, more down-to-earth explanation for the excess mass of those elliptical galaxies.
3.) Dwarf speroidal galaxies (dSphs)
Dwarf spheriodal galaxies (dSphs, Figure 3) are in a way the low mass extension to “conventional” elliptical galaxies, because in a plot of their radius against their mass, they continue the line established by the conventional elliptical galaxies to lower masses. However, the brightest ones are in light and mass like UCDs, but way more extended than UCDs. In other words, there is a gap in radius between dSphs and UCDs (see Gilmore et. al 2007), in contrast to conventional elliptical galaxies and dSphs.
If it is true that dSphs are in fact very low-mass conventional elliptical galaxies, then we would expect them to be about 20 percent or so lighter than expected based on their light with a standard IMF. But in fact, they are way more massive. Just in order get a feeling for the numbers we are dealing with: Let’s say the standard IMF would predict a ratio of mass to light of 2 for a dSph, the ratio for the corrected IMF would then give 1.5, but the measured value is 2000 (all numbers are in Solar units). So, how can we be wrong to a factor up to approximately 1000 (even though in many cases less)?
This is where MOND finally kicks in, because the visible matter in dSphs is actually thin enough, in contrast to UCDs and Es. MOND can rise the ratio of the mass of a dSph over its light from values of a few (that is a stellar population in Newtonian dynamics) to values up to about 100. This fits the dynamical values of many dSphs, which would contain plenty of “dark” matter in Newtonian dynamics. Thus, in MOND, their dark matter is actually phantom dark matter – it would disappear if the matter was denser. Or, in other words, the difference between stellar and dynamical mass estimates disappears for those dSphs, and all is well. The precise value for a given dSph depends on which value the mass-to-light ratio of the stellar population would have according Newtonian dynamics and on how many stars are distributed over which volume, that is the density of visible matter. Estimates for the mass-to-light ratios in Newtonian and MONDian dynamics for a number of dSphs are for example given in Dabringhausen el al. (2016).
But it is also visible in Dabringhausen el al. (2016) that even MONDian dynamics cannot explain the mass-to-light ratios of the few dSphs, which have a mass-to-light ratio far beyond 100. So, have we finally found a failure of MOND? Not necessarily. So far, we have implicitly always assumed that the galaxies are in virial equilibrium. What this means is for instance the absence of tides because of other distracting souces of gravity. The tides on Earth are the best-known example, even though Earth is dense enough to be near tidal equilibrium, given the gravitational forces from the Moon and the Sun. We only see them so well because because in this case, the tides are happening right under our noses. Ultimately, there are tides on Earth because the Earth is an extended body. Thus, the gravitational force from the Moon pull on the near side of the Earth a bit stronger than on the far side, and the Earth is being stretched a bit by the tides. There are ebb and flow of the oceans on Earth, because the Earth also rotates, while the tides are always directed towards the Moon. There of course also other sources of gravity on Earth which cause tides (the Sun for instance), but the Moon is the strongest.
Also UCDs and conventional elliptical galaxies are dense enough to be nearly unaffected by neighboring galaxies, which are the potential reason for tides in them. But the internal gravity is comparatively weak on the thin matter of dSphs, so that they are easy to stretch by outside forces of other galaxies. Thus, the tidal forces form gigantic tidal “waves” consisting of stars. Every encounter with another galaxy pulls on the galaxy, because the gravitational force is stronger on the near side of the encounter than on the far side. This heats the galaxy up, meaning that the galaxy is being pulled out of virial equilibrium by the encounter and that the average velocities of the stars get faster with enconters. Finally, the tidal forces from encounters with other galaxies make the galaxy break apart.
Now, what would an observer from Earth see? The observer could for example see a dSph that has been heated up by a recent encounter with another galaxy, and is thus out of virial equilibrium. Or the dSph has found its virial equilibrium again, but at the cost of stars which have left the dSph, and are now moving faster or slower than the stars which are still bound to the galaxy. But the observer could be ignorant of this fact, and assume that all the stars (s)he sees are bound to the galaxy. Or the dSph has dissolved already completely, but the stars still move all along on similar orbits, even though they are not bound to each other any more. The radius in which the stars are is then just much larger than it would be, if the stars were bound to each other. If the observer then wrongly assumes the dSph to be in virial equilibrium, all these effects increase the dynamical mass estimate (not the real mass!) (s)he makes for the mass of the galaxy. And those effects could indeed raise the dynamical mass estimate by the required factor. For a discussion of tidal heating of dSphs under Newtonian gravity, see for example Kroupa (1997). McGaugh and Wolf (2010) made a similar study with MOND. Notably, they found for observed dSphs surrounding the Milky Way that if a dSph is more susceptible to tidal forces, it is also more likely to be outside virial equilibrium for MOND. For an interesting theoretical discussion of how a dissolving star cluster in a tidal field could be mistaken for a much more massive (but evidently not more luminous) dSph, see Dominguez et al. (2016).
However, the dSphs which are out of virial equilibrium far enough to increase the dynamically estimated mass-to-light ratio by a few or more compared to the real mass could just be a few dSphs out of a larger sample. For the majority, the effect would simply be too weak now, although their time to dissolve will also come. In other words, this scenario is highly improbable if gravity was Newtonian, because then all dSphs around the Milky Way must be in dissolution. However, if gravity is MONDian, only a few would be near their dissolution, while most would be in or near virial equilibrium – see Dabringhausen el al. (2016).
There is also another argument against dark matter in dSphs. Galaxies are usually not by themselves, but surrounded by other galaxies. Together, these galaxies form gravitationally bound galaxy clusters. But how do these galaxy clusters form? According to the LCDM-model, this happens by the infall of galaxies from all directions. They can come, the dSphs included, with any amount of exotic dark matter into a galaxy cluster. We will call those galaxies “primordial galaxies” from now on, because there is also another way to form galaxies that look like dSphs to an observer. This other way is through close encounters of already existing galaxies. In such encounters, matter is pulled away from the existing galaxies by gravity though tides (Figures 4 and 5), and new small galaxies can form from this matter. We know that this process happens. Otherwise, the elongated streaks of matter of, for instance, the Antennae Galaxies and the Tadpole Galaxy would be difficult to explain. Simulations of interacting galaxies, which are set up to reproduce situations like in the Antennae Galaxies, show also those streaks of matter like the ones observed (see for example Bournaud & Duc 2006 or Wetzstein et al. 2007). They are called tidal tails for obvious reasons. The Tadpole Galaxy even has a new small star-forming regions in its tidal tail, which may become dSphs. If aged enough, these dwarf galaxies may be difficult to distinguish from primordial galaxies of the same mass, though (see Dabringhausen & Kroupa 2013). However, in the following, we call galaxies of tidal origin “tidal dwarf galaxies”, in order to distinguish them from primordial galaxies. The tidal dwarf galaxies cannot contain the exotic dark matter of the LCDM-model, even if their progenitor galaxies did. The reason is that all matter that ends up in a tidal dwarf galaxy, whether visible or not, must have occupied similar regions of space with similar velocities also before the encounter of the existing galaxies. The total amount of the exotic dark matter may be huge, but most dark matter had other velocities and other locations, and therefore does not qualify to be bound to the tidal dwarf galaxy. After all, simulations of galaxy encounters by, for example, Barnes & Hernquist (1992) show that most visible matter that is to become a tidal dwarf galaxy comes from the disks of spiral galaxies. This visible matter does not only form a thin disk, as opposed to the presumed dark matter halo, but it also moves with the same velocity in the same direction, again in contrast to the presumed dark matter halo. Also, the tidal dwarf galaxies that form in an encounter of galaxies can only move in the plane of the encounter (because of the conservation of angular momentum). Thus, there is an easy way to distinguish the dSphs in the LCDM-model: those which move in a plane and those which cannot be assigned to a plane. Those in a plane are very likely tidal dwarf galaxies and cannot have any exotic dark matter. Those, however, which cannot be assigned to a plane might also be primordial and can thus contain dark matter (see for example Kroupa et al 2010). Now, what do observations tell us about the pattern of motion of the dSphs? In the Milky Way, it was shown by Lynden-Bell (1976) and by Kroupa et al. (2005) that the then known dSphs are most likely arranged in a plane. Later, additional objects and also velocities were added, but the long-lasting disk of Satellites was always confirmed (see for example Pawlowski et al. 2012 and Pawlowski & Kroupa 2020). This was according to some proponents of the LCDM-model just an exception, while other, they said more normal galaxies would have dSphs with random motions around them. However, it was shown then that also the Andromeda Galaxy has a disk of dSphs around it (for example Ibata et al 2013), and Centaurus A as well (Mueller et al 2018). In short, disks of satellites around major galaxies are more the rule than the exception, see for example Ibata et al (2014) for an attempt of a census. Thus, galaxies in these planes must manage their high dynamical mass-to-light ratios without exotic dark matter, despite numerous claims to the contrary from the LCDM-community. If MOND is the correct description of gravitation, then the large gravitating (phantom) masses of the satellite galaxies, as opposed to their small masses in stars, is beautifully resolved.
I have discussed the reasons for “dark” matter in elliptical galaxies, which comes ultimately from the comparison of different mass estimates. Also, some assumptions which were used for the lack of better knowledge have been proven wrong by now. This concerns the theory of a universal IMF in all star-forming regions, which was leading to a mismatch between the mass estimates from stellar populations and from the dynamics in UCDs and conventional elliptical galaxies. If the “one-size-fits-all” IMF is replaced by a more elaborate picture of the IMF, those differences disappear easily without using exotic dark matter or MOND. For dSphs, the situation is different. They cannot have exotic dark matter because it could not bind to them, but neither can their extreme mass-to-light ratios be explained with different stellar populations. Here, MOND and tidal fields offer an answer. Thus, adding more exotic dark matter to all galaxies until their dynamics is fitted might appear the simpler solution on first sight, but it is not necessarily the correct one. The seemingly more complicated solution without exotic dark matter stands a better test result here.
In The Dark Matter Crisis by Joerg Dabringhausen. A listing of contents of all contributions is available here.