Galaxies 2013, 1, 6-30; doi:10.

3390/galaxies1010006
OPEN ACCESS

galaxies
ISSN 2075-4434
www.mdpi.com/journal/galaxies
Article

Exact Expressions for the Pericenter Precession Caused by Some

Dark Matter Distributions and Constraints on Them from
Orbital Motions in the Solar System, in the Double Pulsar and in
the Galactic Center
Lorenzo Iorio

Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research (M.I.U.R.)-Education, Viale Unità di Italia 68,
Bari (BA) 70125, Italy; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-329-239-9167

Received: 24 April 2013; in revised form: 16 May 2013 / Accepted: 16 May 2013 /
Published: 28 May 2013

Abstract: We analytically calculate the secular precession of the pericenter of a test particle
orbiting a central body surrounded by a continuous distribution of Dark Matter (DM) by
using some commonly adopted spherically symmetric density profiles for it. We obtain exact
expressions without resorting to a-priori simplifying assumptions on the orbital geometry
of the test particle. Our formulas allow us to put constraints on the parameters of the DM
distributions considered in several local astronomical and astrophysical scenarios, such as the
Sun’s planetary system, the double pulsar, and the stellar system around the supermassive
black hole in Sgr A∗ , all characterized by a wide variety of orbital configurations. As far
as our Solar System is concerned, latest determinations of the supplementary perihelion
precessions ∆̟ ˙ with the EPM2011 ephemerides and the common power-law DM density
profile ρDM (r) = ρ0 r −γ λγ yield 5 × 103 GeV cm−3 (γ = 0) ≤ ρ0 ≤ 8 × 103 GeV cm−3
(γ = 4), corresponding to 8.9 × 10−21 g cm−3 ≤ ρ0 ≤ 1.4 × 10−20 g cm−3 , at the Saturn’s
distance. From the periastron of the pulsar PSR J0737-3039A and the same power-low DM
density, one has 1.7 × 1016 GeV cm−3 (γ = 0) ≤ ρ0 ≤ 2 × 1016 (γ = 4) GeV cm−3 ,
corresponding to 3.0 × 10−8 g cm−3 ≤ ρ0 ≤ 3.6 × 10−8 g cm−3 . The perinigricon of the
S0-2 star in Sgr A∗ and the power-law DM model give 1.2 × 1013 GeV cm−3 (γ = 0) ≤
ρ0 ≤ 1 × 1016 (γ = 4, λ = rmin) GeV cm−3 , corresponding to 2.1 × 10−11 g cm−3 ≤ ρ0 ≤
1.8 × 10−8 g cm−3 .

Keywords: experimental studies of gravity; dark matter (stellar, interstellar, galactic, and
cosmological); celestial mechanics; ephemerides, almanacs, and calendars
Galaxies 2013, 1 7

PACS: 04.80.-y; 95.35.+d; 95.10.Ce; 95.10.Km

1. Introduction

Latest results [1] from the ESA’s Planck mission [2] have yielded a significative revision of the
currently accepted content of non-baryonic Dark Matter (DM) of the Universe, which would now
amount to about 26.5% ± 1.1% with respect to the previously accepted value of 23.2% ± 1.7% from
WMAP data. Indeed, the Planck-based cold DM density, normalized to the critical density, is [1]
Ωc h2 = 0.1199 ± 0.0027, with h = 0.673 ± 0.012, while the analysis of nine years of WMAP data
yielded [3] Ωc h2 = 0.1138 ± 0.0045, with h = 0.70 ± 0.022.
Moving to a galactic scale, the Large Area Telescope (LAT) on the Fermi Gamma Ray Space
Telescope spacecraft recently discovered a gamma-ray excess at the Galactic center [4–6], which may be
due to DM annihilation phenomena. The center of the Milky Way is one of the Galactic regions where a
high DM density is expected. As a consequence, if DM was made of self-annihilating constituents into
the Standard Model (SM) particles, signals of DM annihilations should come primarily from the Galactic
center. The gamma-ray excess signature recorded by the Fermi-LAT instrument [4–6] is in the form of
a monochromatic gamma-ray line with an energy of about 130 GeV. Later, a second peak at 110 GeV
was discovered [7]; the same double peak spectrum was independently observed also in gamma-ray
excess from nearby galaxy clusters [8]. The occurrence of a double peak is a generic prediction of DM
annihilation pattern in gauge theories.
There is a lingering debate concerning the amount of DM in our Solar System [9–12]. Recent,
controversial estimates by Moni Bidin et al. [10] of the DM local density in the neighbourhood of
our Solar System, based on certain assumptions about the vertical velocity dispersion of old tracer stars
of the thick disk at the Sun’s neighborhood, point towards a value of

ρDM < 0.04 GeV cm−3 (1)

The bound of Equation (1) is smaller by about one order of magnitude than the usually accepted estimate

ρDM ≈ 0.3 GeV cm−3 (2)

The figure in Equation (2) has been considered as still valid in other recent studies [11,12] criticizing
Moni Bidin et al. [10]. Indeed, Bovy and Tremaine [11], who retained the assumptions by
Moni Bidin et al. [10] implausible, obtained

ρDM = 0.3 ± 0.1 GeV cm−3 (3)

by using a different hypothesis concerning the mean azimuthal velocity of the stellar tracers, while Nesti
and Salucci [12] inferred

ρDM = 0.43 ± 0.11 ± 0.10 GeV cm−3 (4)

Galaxies 2013, 1 8

with a different method, independently of the Galactic DM density profile. An accurate knowledge
of the DM distribution in the neighbourhood of the Solar System is relevant for the attempts
aimed to directly detect DM particles in laboratory-based experiments such as, e.g., CDMSI [13],
CDMSII [14], DAMA/NaI [15] and its successor DAMA/LIBRA [16], XENON10 [17] and ZEPLIN
III [18]. Interestingly, the silicon (Si) detectors of the CDMS II experiment has recently revealed three
WIMP-candidate events at a 3σ level [19]. Moving to the Earth’s neighbourhood, hints of DM might
have been detected [20] by the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) on the International Space Station,
which has recently measured an anomalous high-energy positron excess in Earth-bound cosmic rays [21].
Thus, it has become even more important to devise independent means to effectively gain information
on the constitution and the distribution of such a hypothesized, elusive ingredient of the natural world. In
Section 2, we will analytically calculate the secular perturbations to the motion of a test particle orbiting
a central body surrounded by a continuous DM distribution. We will adopt some spherically symmetric
local DM density profiles [22] by computing the corresponding corrections UDM to the Newtonian
two-body potential through the Poisson equation. Then, we will evaluate them onto the unperturbed
Keplerian ellipse of the test particle, and we will average them over one orbital period Pb of the test
particle in order to use the standard Lagrange planetary equations [23] for the variation of the Keplerian
orbital elements. We will, thus, be able to straightforwardly infer exact expressions of the orbital rates
of change due to the different DM distributions considered without resorting to any a-priori simplifying
assumptions on the orbital configuration of the test particle. Such formulas will be useful to constrain the
DM local distributions in different astrophysical and astronomical scenarios such as planetary systems,
binaries hosting compact objects, stellar systems around supermassive black holes, etc., characterized
by a wide variety of orbital geometries. Only more or less approximate expressions for the DM-induced
pericenter precession exist in literature.
In Section 3 we will apply them to the planets of the Solar System, to the double pulsar, and to the
stars at the Galactic center in Sgr A∗ .
Section 4 summarizes our findings.

2. Orbital Precessions for Various DM Density Profiles

So far, several authors have put dynamical constraints on the DM distribution within our Solar
System from orbital motions of its major bodies [24–36]; for some effects of Solar System’s DM on
the propagation of electromagnetic waves, see [35,37].
In many cases, more or less approximate expressions for the anomalous perihelion precession
induced by certain spherically symmetric DM distributions were used, in particular by considering
nearly circular orbits. In this section, we will overcome such a restriction by calculating exact
expressions, which can thus yield more accurate constraints in view of the increasing level of accuracy
in determining the orbits of some of the major bodies of the Solar System. Moreover, our results can
be used also with systems characterized by highly eccentric orbits such as extrasolar planets, binaries
hosting compact objects, and stellar systems orbiting supermassive black holes lurking in galactic nuclei.
Galaxies 2013, 1 9

2.1. Exponential DM Density Profile

By choosing an exponentially decreasing DM profile [36]

 r
ρDM (r) = ρ0 exp − (5)
λ
where ρ0 is the density at a distance r equal to the characteristic scale length λ, the Poisson
equation yields

4πGρ0 3 h  r  r i
UDM (r) = − λ 2− 2+ exp − (6)
r λ λ
The density profile of Equation (5) is a particular case of the Einasto profile [38], often adopted to
describe DM halos in galaxies [22].
The effect of Equation (6) on the orbital motion of a test particle moving around a central body
of mass M surrounded by a DM continuous distribution characterized by the density profile of
Equation (5) can be computed perturbatively by assuming Equation (6) as a small correction to the
Newtonian monopole UN (r) = −GM/r. The average of Equation (6) over one orbital revolution of the
test particle turns out to be

4πGρ0 λ2 exp − λa h

a i
hUDM i = − 2 exp λ − (a + 2λ) I0 (x) + aeI1 (x) (7)
a λ
.
In Equation (7), I0 (x) , I1 (x) are the modified Bessel functions of the first kind, and x = ae/λ, where
a, e are the semimajor axis and the eccentricity of the orbit of the test particle, respectively.
The Lagrange equation for the variation of the longitude of the pericenter ̟ [23] and Equation (7)
yield the following secular precession

√
4πGρ0 λ 1 − e2 exp − λa [−I1 (x) + eI2 (x)]
 

d̟
= (8)
dt aenb
. p
where nb = GM/a3 = 2π/Pb is the Keplerian mean motion of the test particle. Although
Pitjev and Pitjeva [36] considered the density profile of Equation (5), they did not explicitly calculate the
resulting pericenter precession. The precession of Equation (8) is an exact result in the sense that neither
a-priori simplifying assumptions on e nor on λ were assumed. Note that Equation (8) is not singular in
e since, in the limit e → 0, it reduces to

2πGρ0 exp − λa
 

d̟
→− (9)
dt nb
In the case of an infinite length scale, i.e., for an uniform mass density, Equation (8) reduces to the known
result: [27–29,36]
  √
d̟ 2πGρ0 1 − e2
→− (10)
dt nb
Galaxies 2013, 1 10

2.2. Power-Law DM Density Profile

By assuming a power-law DM distribution profile

 r −γ
ρDM (r) = ρ0 , γ>0 (11)
λ
usually used for the galactic halos and in several DM-related studies [22,39], the Poisson equation yields

4πGρ0
UDM (r) = r 2−γ (12)
(3 − γ) (2 − γ) λ−γ
The orbital effects of Equation (11) have been computed more or less explicitly and at various levels
of approximations in [30,32,34,35,40,41]. Actually, also the averaged pericenter precession induced by
Equation (12) can be exactly computed with the Lagrange pertubative scheme [23] without resorting to
any simplifying assumptions on the eccentricity e of the test particle.
It turns out to be
  16
d̟ πGρ0 X
= pj (e; γ, λ) (13)
dt nb aγ j=1

where the cumbersome expressions of the coefficients pj (e; γ, λ) , j = 1, 2, . . . 16 are explicitly

displayed in Appendix A. It is worthwhile noticing that Equation (13) is not any sort of somewhat
truncated series expansion, and that the coefficients in Appendix A are exact in the sense that no a priori
simplifying assumptions were assumed in calculating them.
By performing a series expansion of Equation (13) in powers of e one obtains

   γ    
d̟ πGρ0 λ γ (γ − 1) − 4 2
e + O e4


≈− 2+ (14)
dt nb a 4

The first term in Equation (14) yields a perihelion shift per orbit
  
d̟ 2π
∆̟ = (15)
dt nb
in agreement with that by Frère et al. [32].

3. Confrontation with the Observations

In this section, we will use our analytical predictions of Equations (8) and (13) to infer constraints on
ρ0 as functions of λ and γ in some astronomical and astrophysical scenarios.

3.1. Planets of the Solar System

By following the approach adopted in several researches on DM [26–36] and on other putative
non-standard dynamical effects [27,42] in our Solar System, we will confront our theoretically predicted
pericenter precessions of Equations (8) and (13) with the latest determinations of the admissible ranges
∆̟˙ for any possible anomalous perihelion precessions obtained by fitting up-to-date dynamical models
Galaxies 2013, 1 11

to a centennial record of planetary observations of several types. The term “anomalous” refers to
the standard Newtonian–Einsteinian dynamics, fully modeled in the most recent planetary dynamical
theories. At present, two independent teams of astronomers are engaged in producing, among other
things, such corrections ∆̟ ˙ to the planetary perihelion precessions [36,43]; here we will adopt the latest
estimates by Pitjev and Pitjeva [36], summarized in Table 1, which are based on the most recent version
of the EMP ephemerides. DM was not explicitly modeled in the EPM routines; thus, the supplementary
precessions of Table 1 are well suited to put constraints on it in a phenomenological, model-independent
way. Here and in the rest of the paper, “model-independent” has to be intended as independent of the
nature and of the physical properties of the DM particles. On the other hand, the constraints inferred in
this paper depend on how DM clusters in space, i.e., on the specific density profiles adopted. Moreover,
by assuming that the whole ranges ∆̟ ˙ in Table 1 are entirely due to DM, the resulting constraints will
be relatively “generous”, mitigating the risk of getting unrealistically tight bounds. A complementary
approach that could be followed, recommended by some researchers [44] when non-standard effects
such as DM are involved, consists in explicitly modeling DM and fitting such ad-hoc modified dynamical
theories to the same dataset in order to estimate a dedicated solved-for parameter in a least-square way.
One could try with different DM density profiles to establish the one providing the best fit to the data.
Such a strategy would be particularly meaningful in the case where non-zero extra-precessions, at a
statistically significant level, should be extracted from future observations.

Table 1. Supplementary precessions ∆̟ ˙ of the longitudes of the perihelion for some planets
of the Solar System estimated by Pitjev and Pitjeva [36] with the EPM2011 ephemerides.
They processed 676,804 data of various kinds covering about one century (1913–2010) by
estimating more than 260 parameters. While some tracking data from Cassini were used,
those from Messenger, currently orbiting Mercury, were not included in the data record.
Pitjev and Pitjeva [36] fully modeled all standard Newtonian–Einsteinian dynamics, apart
from the general relativistic Lense–Thirring effect caused by the Sun’s rotation. However,
its expected magnitude from general relativity is smaller than the uncertainties quoted here
for the planets used in the text (Earth, Mars, Saturn), so that it does not impact our results.
The units are milliarcseconds per century (mas cty−1 ). The errors released σ∆̟˙ , in mas cty−1
as well, generally exceed the formal, statistical ones by several times [36].

Planet ∆̟
˙ (mas cty−1 ) σ∆̟˙ (mas cty−1 )

Mercury −2.0 3.0

Venus 2.6 1.6
Earth 0.19 0.19
Mars −0.020 0.037
Jupiter 58.7 28.3
Saturn −0.32 0.47
Galaxies 2013, 1 12

3.1.1. Constraints for the Exponential Density Profile

Here, we deal with the exponential density profile of Equation (5).

In Figure 1 we plot the upper bounds on ρ0 , in GeV cm−3 , as a function of the characteristic scale
length λ over the extension of the orbits of the Earth, Mars and Saturn. We compare Equation (8) with
the figures in Table 1. The tightest bounds come from the perihelion of Saturn; 1.7 × 104 GeV cm−3 ≤
ρ0 ≤ 1.9 × 104 GeV cm−3 corresponding to 3.0 × 10−20 g cm−3 ≤ ρ0 ≤ 3.4 × 10−20 g cm−3 .

Figure 1. Upper bounds, in GeV cm−3 (1 GeV cm−3 is equivalent to 1.78 × 10−24 g cm−3 ),
on the DM density parameter ρ0 as a function of the characteristic scale length λ of
Equation (5). The supplementary perihelion precessions of Table 1 for Earth, Mars and
Saturn were adopted along with the analytical prediction of Equation (8). The characteristic
length λ, in AU, is assumed to vary from rmin = a(1 − e) to rmax = a(1 + e).

DM density Ρ0 , HGeV cm-3 L, from the Earth's perihelion

215000
214000
213000
212000
211000
210000
209000
208000
0.985 0.99 0.995 1 1.005 1.01 1.015
Λ HAUL

DM density Ρ0 , HGeV cm-3 L, from the Mars' perihelion

24000

23000

22000

21000

1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65

Λ HAUL

DM density Ρ0 , HGeV cm-3 L, from the Saturn's perihelion

18500

18000

17500

17000
9 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10
Λ HAUL
Galaxies 2013, 1 13

3.1.2. Constraints for the Power-Law Density Profile

Here, the power-law distribution of Equation (11) is considered.

Figure 2 displays the bounds on ρ0 , in GeV cm−3 , as a function of the characteristic scale length λ
and of the parameter γ for the Earth, Mars and Saturn. Also in this case, λ covers the orbit extensions
of the planets considered, while [32,35] 0 ≤ γ ≤ 4. Also in this case, Saturn yields the tightest bounds:
5 × 103 GeV cm−3 (γ = 0) ≤ ρ0 ≤ 8 × 103 GeV cm−3 (γ = 4) corresponding to 8.9 × 10−21 g cm−3 ≤
ρ0 ≤ 1.4 × 10−20 g cm−3 . They are about one order of magnitude better than those inferred in
Section 3.1.1.

Figure 2. Upper bounds, in GeV cm−3 (1 GeV cm−3 is equivalent to 1.78 × 10−24 g cm−3 ),
on the DM density parameter ρ0 as a function of the parameters λ and γ of Equation (11). The
supplementary perihelion precessions of Table 1 for Earth, Mars and Saturn were adopted
along with the analytical prediction of Equation (13). The characteristic length λ, in AU, is
assumed to vary from rmin = a(1 − e) to rmax = a(1 + e).

DM density Ρ0 , HGeV cm-3 L, from the Earth's perihelion

82500
80000 4
77500
75000 3
72500
2
Γ
0.99
1 1
Λ HAUL
1.01
0

DM density Ρ0 , HGeV cm-3 L, from the Mars' perihelion

10000 4
8000
3
6000

1.4 2
Γ

1.5 1
Λ HAUL
1.6
0

-3
DM density Ρ0 , HGeV cm L, from the Saturn's perihelion

8000
7000 4

6000 3

2
Γ
9.25
9.5 1
Λ HAUL 9.75
10 0
Galaxies 2013, 1 14

3.2. The Double Pulsar

Thanks to their high matter density, astrophysical compact objects such as neutron stars should be able
to efficiently capture significative amounts of DM [45–55] depending on the nature of its particles, on
how it clusters in space and on the history of the stars themselves. Concentrations of DM around neutron
stars may give rise to phenomena such as gamma-ray emission [54,55] which, on the one hand, depend
on the physical properties of DM particles themselves [56] and, on the other hand, can be generated also
by other physical mechanisms [57,58]. Thus, it is valuable to constrain the DM density around binaries
hosting neutron stars in a phenomenological and model-independent way.
To this aim, we look at the double pulsar PSR J0737-3039A/B [59,60]. As in Section 3.1, we consider
both Equations (5) and (11). In this case, we use the periastron precession of PSR J0737-3039A,
which is nowadays determined with an accuracy of 6.8 × 10−4◦ year−1 from timing measurements [61].
Nonetheless, care is required in straightforwardly using such a figure in comparisons with theoretical
predictions of non-standard effects to infer constraints on them. Indeed, a larger uncertainty should,
actually, be considered on the periastron rate of PSR J0737-3039A because of the mismodeling in its
1PN periastron precession [62]; it may be as large as 0.03◦ year−1 [62]. In Figure 3 the bounds for both
Equations (5) and (11) are shown. The power-law profile provides the tightest constraints. Indeed, over
the extension of the double pulsar system, it yields 1.7 × 1016 GeV cm−3 (γ = 0) ≤ ρ0 ≤ 2 × 1016
(γ = 4) GeV cm−3 corresponding to 3.0 × 10−8 g cm−3 ≤ ρ0 ≤ 3.6 × 10−8 g cm−3 , while the
bounds from the exponential density profile are of the order of 5 × 1016 GeV cm−3 corresponding to
9 × 10−8 g cm−3 .

3.3. The Stellar System Orbiting the Galactic Black Hole in Sgr A∗

The issue of the DM distribution at the center of galaxies in presence of supermassive black holes has
been treated in, e.g., [40,41,63–66]. It depends on several factors such as [63] the galactic halo density
profile itself [67] and the nature of the DM particles themselves. Moreover, as pointed out in [66],
significant differences in the final DM distribution close to the black hole are found depending on the
theoretical scheme adopted for the calculation.
So far, the presence of DM at the center of the Milky Way has been indirectly guessed from
certain phenomena such as gamma-ray emissions interpreted as DM annihilation [68,69]. However,
such interpretations are not free from more or less tested assumptions about several other concurring
physical phenomena [70,71]. Recently, the Fermi satellite detected a gamma-ray excess at the Galactic
center, which may be due to DM annihilation phenomena [4–6]. Thus, it is important to constrain DM
distributions at the Galactic center in a dynamical, model-independent way.
To this aim, we will look at the orbital motions of the stellar system [39,72,73] revolving about the
supermassive black hole located at the Galactic center in Sgr A∗ [74]. So far, available data cover
one full orbital revolution for two stars: S0-2, having an orbital period Pb = 16.17 ± 0.15 years and
eccentricity e = 0.898 ± 0.005 [73], and S0-102, characterized by Pb = 11.5 ± 0.3 years and eccentricity
e = 0.68 ± 0.02 [73]. The mass of the black hole is M• = (4.1 ± 0.4) × 106 M⊙ [73]. From such
figures, a naive, order-of-magnitude evaluation on the accuracy that could be reached in determining the
stellar perinigricon precessions can be made; for S0-2 we have σω̇ ≈ 0.6◦ year−1 , while for S0-102 it
Galaxies 2013, 1 15

can be inferred σω̇ ≈ 4.8◦ year−1 . Then, we will adopt S0-2 as probe to constrain DM density as done in
the previous sections. In view of its high eccentricity, the exact formulas of Equations (8) and (13)
are well suited for such a task. From Figure 4 it turns out that the bounds for the exponential
density vary sensibly over the S0-2 orbit extension in view of its high eccentricity; indeed, it is
ρ0 ≈ 4 × 1015 GeV cm−3 , corresponding to 7 × 10−9 g cm−3 , for λ = rmin, while it reduces to
ρ0 ≈ 2 × 1013 GeV cm−3 , corresponding to 3 × 10−11 g cm−3 , for λ = rmax . As pointed out in [39], as
far as supposedly baryonic DM is concerned, both theoretical [75,76] and observational [77] motivations
for considering a power-law profile such as Equation (11) at the galactic centers exist in literature. The
same kind of potential was considered for non-baryonic DM as well [41,64]. According to Figure 4, it
yields 1.2 × 1013 GeV cm−3 (γ = 0) ≤ ρ0 ≤ 1 × 1016 (γ = 4, λ = rmin) GeV cm−3 corresponding to
2.1 × 10−11 g cm−3 ≤ ρ0 ≤ 1.8 × 10−8 g cm−3 .

Figure 3. Upper bounds, in GeV cm−3 (1 GeV cm−3 is equivalent to 1.78 × 10−24 g cm−3 ),
on the DM density parameter ρ0 in the PSR J0737-3039A/B system as a function of λ (top
panel) of Equation (5), and of λ and γ of Equation (11) (bottom panel). The characteristic
length λ, in AU, is assumed to vary from rmin = a(1 − e) to rmax = a(1 + e). A conservative
periastron rate uncertainty of 0.03◦ year−1 [62] was assumed for PSR J0737-3039A. It was
compared with the theoretical predictions of Equation (8) (top panel) and of Equation (13)
(bottom panel).

DM density Ρ0 , HGeV cm-3 L, from the pulsar's periastron

5 ´ 1016

4.8 ´ 1016

4.6 ´ 1016

4.4 ´ 1016

4.2 ´ 1016
0.0054 0.0056 0.0058 0.006 0.0062 0.0064
Λ HAUL

DM density Ρ0 , HGeV cm-3 L, from the pulsar's periastron

2 ´ 1016 4
16
1.5 ´ 10 3

2 Γ
0.0055
0.00575 1
Λ HAUL 0.006
0.00625 0
Galaxies 2013, 1 16

Figure 4. Upper bounds, in GeV cm−3 (1 GeV cm−3 is equivalent to 1.78 × 10−24 g cm−3 ),
on the DM density parameter ρ0 in the Sgr A∗ —S0-2 system as a function of λ (top panel)
of Equation (5), and of λ and γ of Equation (11) (bottom panel). The characteristic length
λ, in AU, is assumed to vary from rmin = a(1 − e) to rmax = a(1 + e). A conservative
perinigricon rate uncertainty of 0.6◦ year−1 was assumed for S0-2. It was compared with the
theoretical predictions of Equation (8) (top panel) and of Equation (13) (bottom panel).

DM density Ρ0 , HGeV cm-3 L, from the S0-2's perinigricon

4 ´ 1015

3 ´ 1015

2 ´ 1015

1 ´ 1015

0
250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750
Λ HAUL

DM density Ρ0 , HGeV cm-3 L, from the S0-2's perinigricon

1 ´ 1016
7.5 ´ 1015
4
5 ´ 1015
2.5 ´ 1015 3
0
2 Γ
500
1000 1
Λ HAUL 1500
0

For an earlier idea of constraining the DM concentration near the Galactic center from the perinigricon
of S0-2, see [40,41].

4. Summary and Conclusions

Recent results concerning the amount of non-baryonic DM, both at global and local scales, stress the
need of further deepening the research of accurate and independent strategies to gain information about
the distribution of such a hypothetical key ingredient of the natural world.
To this aim, we looked at the effects induced by some spherically symmetric DM density profiles on
the motion of a test particle orbiting a localized body surrounded by an extended DM distribution. In
view of the increasing accuracy in the determination of the orbits of the planets of our Solar System and
of the possibility of looking also at different astronomical and astrophysical laboratories characterized by
a wide variety of orbital configurations, we analytically calculated the DM-induced pericenter precession
Galaxies 2013, 1 17

without resorting to any a-priori simplifying assumptions concerning the orbital geometry of the test
particle. In this respect, our results, obtained perturbatively by means of the Lagrange planetary
equations, are exact, being valid for any value of the eccentricity of the orbit of the test particle.
We considered an exponentially decreasing profile ρDM (r) = ρ0 exp (−r/λ) and a standard
power-law model ρDM (r) = ρ0 r −γ λγ . We compared our analytical predictions with the latest
observational determinations for some planets of our Solar System obtained with the EPM2011
ephemerides, the double pulsar, and the S0-2 star orbiting the supermassive black hole in Sgr A∗ . The
tightest constraints, obtained for the power-law model, came from the supplementary precessions of the
planetary perihelia. We obtained 5 × 103 GeV cm−3 (γ = 0) ≤ ρ0 ≤ 8 × 103 GeV cm−3 (γ = 4),
corresponding to 8.9 × 10−21 g cm−3 ≤ ρ0 ≤ 1.4 × 10−20 g cm−3 , at the Saturn’s distance.
From the periastron of PSR J0737-3039A we inferred 1.7 × 1016 GeV cm−3 (γ = 0) ≤ ρ0 ≤
2 × 1016 GeV cm−3 (γ = 4), corresponding to 3.0 × 10−8 g cm−3 ≤ ρ0 ≤ 3.6 × 10−8 g cm−3 . The
perinigricon of the S0-2 star in Sgr A∗ gave 1.2 × 1013 GeV cm−3 (γ = 0) ≤ ρ0 ≤ 1 × 1016 (γ = 4,
λ = rmin) GeV cm−3 , corresponding to 2.1 × 10−11 g cm−3 ≤ ρ0 ≤ 1.8 × 10−8 g cm−3 .
Our results can be used in future when new, more accurate data will be collected and processed. As a
complementary approach that could be followed, DM dynamical effects should be explicitly modeled in
the softwares used to reduce the planetary observations, and dedicated solved-for parameters should be
estimated in fitting the newly constructed models of the forces acting on the planets to given data records.

Appendix

A. The Coefficients of the Pericenter Precession due to the Power-Law Density

Below, the exact expressions of the coefficients pj (e, ; γ, λ) , j = 1, 2, . . . , 16 of the pericenter

precession of Equation (13), induced by Equations (11) and (12), are listed. No simplifying assumptions
on the eccentricity e were assumed in computing them. They contain the hypergeometric function
2 F1 (q, w; b; d) [78].

2 (1 + e)−γ λγ
p1 = − √ {
15 (−1 + e)2 e 1 − e2 (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

(γ − 3)(γ(γ(16γ(8γ − 61) + 2687) − 3204) + 1405)e6 −

− (γ − 2)(γ(16γ(γ(8γ − 57) + 140) − 2265) + 815)e5 +

+ (γ(γ(γ(464γ − 3917) + 11838) − 15306) + 7155)e4+

+ 2(γ(γ(24γ(5γ − 38) + 2813) − 4095) + 2230)e3 +

+ (γ((5099 − 915γ)γ − 8991) + 5095)e2 +

Galaxies 2013, 1 18

+ 15(γ(35γ − 151) + 154)e−

− 5(3γ((γ − 8)γ + 24) − 73)

 
1 2e
} 2 F1 , γ; 1; (A1)
2 1+e

2 (1 + e)−γ λγ
p2 = − √ {
15 (−1 + e)3 e 1 − e2 (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

2(γ − 3)(γ − 2)(γ(2γ(8γ(8γ − 55) + 1093) − 2421) + 985)e7−

− (γ − 2)(γ(4γ(γ(8γ(8γ − 73) + 2065) − 3593) + 12571) − 4325)e6 +

+ (γ(γ(2γ(12γ(52γ − 485) + 21371) − 77699) + 69856) − 24575)e5+

+ (γ(8γ(5γ(3γ(4γ − 47) + 616) − 6337) + 49979) − 19385)e4−

− 2(γ(γ(γ(990γ − 7771) + 21801) − 26063) + 11335)e3+

+ (γ(γ(60(35 − 3γ)γ − 8891) + 15549) − 9320)e2 +

+ 5(3γ − 5)(γ(30γ − 119) + 95)e−

− 5(9γ(2γ − 9) + 89)

 
1 2e
} 2 F1 , γ; 2; (A2)
2 1+e

2γ (1 + e)−γ λγ
p3 = − √ {
5 (−1 + e) 1 − e2 (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

(4γ(γ(8γ − 53) + 104) − 225)e3 +

+ 2(4γ − 11)(4γ − 5)e2 −

Galaxies 2013, 1 19

− 5(4γ(3γ − 14) + 63)e+

+ 10

 
1 2e
} 2 F1 , 1 + γ; 2; (A3)
2 1+e

γ (1 + e)−γ λγ
p4 = − √ {
5 (−1 + e)2 1 − e2 (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

(γ(γ(8γ(8γ − 67) + 1669) − 2256) + 1070)e4 +

+ (γ(4γ(4γ − 45) + 489) − 335)e3 −

− (2γ − 3)(3γ − 10)(20γ − 47)e2 −

− 5(γ(12γ − 55) + 65)e+

+ 5(3γ − 8)(3γ − 7)

 
1 2e
} 2 F1 , 1 + γ; 3; (A4)
2 1+e

2 (1 + e)1−γ λγ
p5 = − √ {
5 (−1 + e)2 e 1 − e2 (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

(γ − 3)(4γ(γ(8γ − 53) + 104) − 225)e5 +

+ (γ(1839 − 4γ(γ(8γ − 85) + 311)) − 895)e4 +

+ (γ(4γ(9γ − 71) + 575) − 255)e3 +

+ (2γ − 5)(γ(30γ − 107) + 123)e2 −

− 10(γ(12γ − 55) + 60)e+

Galaxies 2013, 1 20

+ 10

 
1 2e
} 2 F1 − , γ; 1; (A5)
2 1+e

2 (1 + e)1−γ λγ
p6 = − √ {
5 (−1 + e)3 e 1 − e2 (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

(γ − 3)(γ(γ(8γ(8γ − 67) + 1669) − 2256) + 1070)e6+

+ (γ(γ(γ(8(101 − 8γ)γ − 4025) + 9781) − 11407) + 4950)e5 +

+ (γ(γ(2γ(92γ − 727) + 4311) − 5616) + 2600)e4 +

+ γ 2γ 60γ 2 − 669γ + 2483 − 7631 + 4300 e3 +

+ (γ((1891 − 255γ)γ − 4409) + 3210)e2 −

− 5(3γ(γ(3γ − 19) + 42) − 94)e+

+ 5(3γ − 8)(3γ − 7)

 
1 2e
} 2 F1 − , γ; 2; (A6)
2 1+e

2γ (1 + e)−γ λγ
p7 = − {
15 (1 − e2 )3/2 e (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

(γ(γ(16γ(8γ − 61) + 2687) − 3204) + 1405)e5 +

+ (γ((447 − 64γ)γ − 939) + 590)e4−

− 2(γ(γ(120γ − 649) + 1066) − 525)e3 +

+ 10(3γ − 8)(7γ − 11)e2 +

Galaxies 2013, 1 21

+ 5(3(γ − 8)γ + 37)e+

+ 15(γ − 3)(γ − 2)

 
3 2e
} 2 F1 , 1 + γ; 2; (A7)
2 1+e

γ (1 + e)−3/2−γ λγ
p8 = {
15 (1 − e)5/2 (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

256e5 γ 5 −

− 32e3 (e(71e + 6) + 15)γ 4 +

+ 4e(e(e(e(1973e + 348) + 870) + 60) + 45)γ 3 −

− 2(e(e(e(e(6793e + 1793) + 4446) + 826) + 465) + 45)γ 2 +

+ (e(e(e(e(11654e + 3925) + 9608) + 3518) + 1370) + 405)γ−

− 5(e(e(e(e(788e + 317) + 764) + 458) + 104) + 89)

 
3 2e
} 2 F1 , 1 + γ; 3; (A8)
2 1+e

2 (1 − e)−γ λγ
p9 = √ {
15 (1 + e)5/2 e 1 − e (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

(γ − 3)(γ(γ(16γ(8γ − 61) + 2687) − 3204) + 1405)e6 +

+ (γ − 2)(γ(16γ(γ(8γ − 57) + 140) − 2265) + 815)e5 +

+ (γ(γ(γ(464γ − 3917) + 11838) − 15306) + 7155)e4−

− 2(γ(γ(24γ(5γ − 38) + 2813) − 4095) + 2230)e3 +

Galaxies 2013, 1 22

+ (γ((5099 − 915γ)γ − 8991) + 5095)e2 −

− 15(γ(35γ − 151) + 154)e−

− 5(3γ((γ − 8)γ + 24) − 73)

 
1 2e
} 2 F1 , γ; 1; (A9)
2 −1 + e

2 (1 − e)−γ λγ
p10 = √ {
15 (1 + e)7/2 e 1 − e (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

2(γ − 3)(γ − 2)(γ(2γ(8γ(8γ − 55) + 1093) − 2421) + 985)e7+

+ (γ − 2)(γ(4γ(γ(8γ(8γ − 73) + 2065) − 3593) + 12571) − 4325)e6 +

+ (γ(γ(2γ(12γ(52γ − 485) + 21371) − 77699) + 69856) − 24575)e5+

+ (γ(−8γ(5γ(3γ(4γ − 47) + 616) − 6337) − 49979) + 19385)e4 −

− 2(γ(γ(γ(990γ − 7771) + 21801) − 26063) + 11335)e3+

+ (γ(γ(60γ(3γ − 35) + 8891) − 15549) + 9320)e2 +

+ 5(3γ − 5)(γ(30γ − 119) + 95)e+

+5(9γ(2γ − 9) + 89)

 
1 2e
} 2 F1 , γ; 2; (A10)
2 −1 + e

2γ (1 − e)−1/2−γ λγ
p11 = − {
5 (1 + e)3/2 (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

32e3 γ 3 −
Galaxies 2013, 1 23

− 4e(e(53e + 8) + 15)γ 2 +

+ 8e(4e(13e + 4) + 35)γ−

− 5(e(e(45e + 22) + 63) + 2)

 
1 2e
} 2 F1 , 1 + γ; 2; (A11)
2 −1 + e

γ (1 − e)−γ λγ
p12 = − √ {
5 (1 + e)5/2 1 − e (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

(γ(γ(8γ(8γ − 67) + 1669) − 2256) + 1070)e4 +

+ (γ(4(45 − 4γ)γ − 489) + 335)e3 −

− (2γ − 3)(3γ − 10)(20γ − 47)e2 +

+ 5(γ(12γ − 55) + 65)e+

+ 5(3γ − 8)(3γ − 7)

 
1 2e
} 2 F1 , 1 + γ; 3; (A12)
2 −1 + e

2 (1 − e)1/2−γ λγ
p13 = − {
5e (1 + e)5/2 (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

(γ − 3)(4γ(γ(8γ − 53) + 104) − 225)e5 +

+ (γ(4γ(γ(8γ − 85) + 311) − 1839) + 895)e4 +

+ (γ(4γ(9γ − 71) + 575) − 255)e3 +

+ (γ(4(91 − 15γ)γ − 781) + 615)e2−

Galaxies 2013, 1 24

− 10(γ(12γ − 55) + 60)e

− 10

 
1 2e
} 2 F1 − , γ; 1; (A13)
2 −1 + e

2 (−1 + e)4 (1 − e)−γ λγ

p14 = − {
5e (1 − e2 )7/2 (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

(γ − 3)(γ(γ(8γ(8γ − 67) + 1669) − 2256) + 1070)e6+

+ (γ(γ(γ(8γ(8γ − 101) + 4025) − 9781) + 11407) − 4950)e5 +

+ (γ(γ(2γ(92γ − 727) + 4311) − 5616) + 2600)e4 +

+ γ 7631 − 2γ 60γ 2 − 669γ + 2483 − 4300 e3 +

+ (γ((1891 − 255γ)γ − 4409) + 3210)e2 +

+ 5(3γ(γ(3γ − 19) + 42) − 94)e+

+ 5(3γ − 8)(3γ − 7)

 
1 2e
} 2 F1 − , γ; 2; (A14)
2 −1 + e

2γ (1 − e)−γ λγ
p15 = − {
15e (1 − e2 )3/2 (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

(γ(γ(16γ(8γ − 61) + 2687) − 3204) + 1405)e5 +

+ (γ(γ(64γ − 447) + 939) − 590)e4−

− 2(γ(γ(120γ − 649) + 1066) − 525)e3 −

Galaxies 2013, 1 25

− 10(3γ − 8)(7γ − 11)e2 +

+ 5(3(γ − 8)γ + 37)e−

− 15(γ − 3)(γ − 2)

 
3 2e
} 2 F1 , 1 + γ; 2; (A15)
2 −1 + e

γ (1 − e)−γ λγ
p16 = − {
15 (1 − e)3/2 (1 + e)5/2 (6 − 5γ + γ 2 )2

2(γ − 2)(γ(2γ(8γ(8γ − 55) + 1093) − 2421) + 985)e5 +

+ (γ(2γ(24γ(4γ − 29) + 1793) − 3925) + 1585)e4 −

− 4(γ(3γ(10γ(4γ − 29) + 741) − 2402) + 955)e3 +

+ (2290 − 2γ(2γ(60γ − 413) + 1759))e2 +

+ 10(γ(3γ(6γ − 31) + 137) − 52)e+

+ 5(9γ(2γ − 9) + 89)

 
3 2e
} 2 F1 , 1 + γ; 3; (A16)
2 −1 + e

References

1. Planck, C.; Ade, P.A.R.; Aghanim, N.; Armitage-Caplan, C.; Arnaud, M.; Ashdown, M.;
Atrio-Barandela, F.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; Banday, A.J.; et al. Planck 2013 results. XVI.
Cosmological parameters. ArXiv E-Prints, 2013, arXiv:1303.5076.
2. Planck Collaboration; Ade, P.A.R.; Aghanim, N.; Arnaud, M.; Ashdown, M.; Aumont, J.;
Baccigalupi, C.; Baker, M.; Balbi, A.; Banday, A.J.; et al. Planck early results. I. The Planck
mission. Astron. Astrophys. 2011, 536, A1:1–A1:16.
Galaxies 2013, 1 26

3. Hinshaw, G.; Larson, D.; Komatsu, E.; Spergel, D.N.; Bennett, C.L.; Dunkley, J.; Nolta, M.R.;
Halpern, M.; Hill, R.S.; Odegard, N.; et al. Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe
(WMAP) observations: Cosmological parameter results. ArXiv E-Prints, 2012, arXiv:1212.5226.
4. Bringmann, T.; Huang, X.; Ibarra, A.; Vogl, S.; Weniger, C. Fermi LAT search for internal
bremsstrahlung signatures from dark matter annihilation. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2012,
2012, 054, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/07/054.
5. Weniger, C. A tentative gamma-ray line from Dark Matter annihilation at the Fermi Large Area
Telescope. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2012, 2012, 007, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/08/007.
6. Tempel, E.; Hektor, A.; Raidal, M. Fermi 130 GeV gamma-ray excess and dark matter annihilation
in sub-haloes and in the Galactic Centre. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2012, 2012, 032:1–032:15.
7. Tempel, E.; Hektor, A.; Raidal, M. Addendum: Fermi 130 GeV gamma-ray excess and dark matter
annihilation in sub-haloes and in the Galactic Centre. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2012, 2012,
A01:1–A01:2.
8. Hektor, A.; Raidal, M.; Tempel, E. Evidence for indirect detection of dark matter from galaxy
clusters in fermi γ-ray data. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2013, 762, L22:1–L22:4.
9. Salucci, P.; Nesti, F.; Gentile, G.; Frigerio Martins, C. The dark matter density at the Sun’s location.
Astron. Astrophys. 2010, 523, A83:1–A83:6.
10. Moni Bidin, C.; Carraro, G.; Méndez, R.A.; Smith, R. Kinematical and chemical vertical structure
of the galactic thick disk. II. A lack of dark matter in the solar neighborhood. Astrophys. J. 2012,
751, 30:1–30:14.
11. Bovy, J.; Tremaine, S. On the local dark matter density. Astrophys. J. 2012, 756, 89:1–89:6.
12. Nesti, F.; Salucci, P. The local dark matter density. ArXiv E-Prints, 2012, arXiv:1212.3670.
13. Akerib, D.S.; Alvaro-Dean, J.; Armel, M.S.; Attisha, M.J.; Baudis, L.; Bauer, D.A.;
Bolozdynya, A.I.; Brink, P.L.; Bunker, R.; Cabrera, B.; et al. New results from the Cryogenic
Dark Matter Search experiment. Phys. Rev. D 2003, 68, 082002:1–082002:4.
14. CDMS Collaboration; Ahmed, Z.; Akerib, D.S.; Arrenberg, S.; Bailey, C.N.; Balakishiyeva, D.;
Baudis, L.; Bauer, D.A.; Brink, P.L.; Bruch, T.; et al. Dark matter search results from the CDMS
II experiment. Science 2010, 327, 1619–1621.
15. Bernabei, R.; Belli, P.; Cappella, F.; Cerulli, R.; Montechia, F.; Nozzoli, F.; Incicchitti, A.;
Prosperi, D.; Dai, C.J.; Kuang, H.H.; et al. Dark matter search. Riv. Nuovo Cimento 2003,
26, 1–73.
16. Bernabei, R.; Belli, P.; Bussolotti, A.; Cappella, F.; Cerulli, R.; Dai, C.J.; D’Angelo, A.; He, H.L.;
Incicchitti, A.; Kuang, H.H.; et al. The DAMA/LIBRA apparatus. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys.
Res. A 2008, 592, 297–315.
17. Angle, J.; Aprile, E.; Arneodo, F.; Baudis, L.; Bernstein, A.; Bolozdynya, A.; Coelho, L.C.C.;
Dahl, C.E.; Deviveiros, L.; Ferella, A.D.; et al. Constraints on inelastic dark matter from
XENON10. Phys. Rev. D 2009, 80, 115005:1–115005:8.
18. Sumner, T.J. The ZEPLIN III dark matter project. New Astron. Rev. 2005, 49, 277–281.
19. CDMS Collaboration; Agnese, R.; Ahmed, Z.; Anderson, A.J.; Arrenberg, S.; Balakishiyeva, D.;
Basu Thakur, R.; Bauer, D.A.; Billard, J.; Borgland, A.; et al. Dark matter search results using the
silicon detectors of CDMS II. ArXiv E-Prints, 2013, arXiv:1304.4279.
Galaxies 2013, 1 27

20. Coutu, S. Positrons galore. Phys. Online J. 2013, 6, 40:1–40:3.

21. Aguilar, M.; Alberti, G.; Alpat, B.; Alvino, A.; Ambrosi, G.; Andeen, K.; Anderhub, H.;
Arruda, L.; Azzarello, P.; Bachlechner, A.; et al. First result from the alpha magnetic spectrometer
on the international space station: Precision measurement of the positron fraction in primary cosmic
rays of 0.5–350 GeV. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013, 110, 141102:1–141102:10.
22. Merritt, D.; Graham, A.W.; Moore, B.; Diemand, J.; Terzić, B. Empirical models for dark matter
halos. I. Nonparametric construction of density profiles and comparison with parametric models.
Astron. J. 2006, 132, 2685–2700.
23. Bertotti, B.; Farinella, P.; Vokrouhlický, D. Physics of the Solar System; Kluwer Academic Press:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2003.
24. Anderson, J.D.; Lau, E.L.; Taylor, A.H.; Dicus, D.A.; Teplitz, D.C.; Teplitz, V.L. Bounds on dark
matter in solar orbit. Astrophys. J. 1989, 342, 539–544.
25. Anderson, J.D.; Lau, E.L.; Krisher, T.P.; Dicus, D.A.; Rosenbaum, D.C.; Teplitz, V.L. Improved
bounds on nonluminous matter in solar orbit. Astrophys. J. 1995, 448, 885–892.
26. Grøn, Ø.; Soleng, H.H. Experimental limits on the density of dark matter in the solar system.
Astrophys. J. 1996, 456, 445–448.
27. Sereno, M.; Jetzer, P. Dark matter versus modifications of the gravitational inverse-square law:
Results from planetary motion in the Solar system. Mon. Notices R. Astron. Soc. 2006,
371, 626–632.
28. Iorio, L. Solar system planetary orbital motions and dark matter. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.
2006, 5, 002, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/05/002.
29. Khriplovich, I.B.; Pitjeva, E.V. Upper limits on density of dark matter in solar system. Int. J. Mod.
Phys. D 2006, 15, 615–618.
30. Khriplovich, I.B. Density of dark matter in the solar system and perihelion precession of planets.
Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2007, 16, 1475–1478.
31. Adler, S.L. Planet-bound dark matter and the internal heat of Uranus, Neptune, and hot-Jupiter
exoplanets. Phys. Lett. B 2009, 671, 203–206.
32. Frère, J.M.; Ling, F.S.; Vertongen, G. Bound on the dark matter density in the Solar System from
planetary motions. Phys. Rev. D 2008, 77, 083005:1–083005:5.
33. Iorio, L. Effect of sun and planet-bound dark matter on planet and satellite dynamics in the solar
system. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2010, 5, 018, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2010/05/018.
34. Saadat, H.; Mousavi, S.N.; Saadat, M.; Saadat, N.; Saadat, A.M. The effect of dark matter on solar
system and perihelion precession of earth planet. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 2010, 49, 2506–2511.
35. De Risi, G.; Harko, T.; Lobo, F.S.N. Solar system constraints on local dark matter density.
J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2012, 7, 047, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/07/047.
36. Pitjev, N.; Pitjeva, E. Constraints on dark matter in the solar system. Astron. Lett. 2013, 39,
141–149.
37. Arakida, H. Influence of dark matter on light propagation in solar system. Adv. Space Res. 2010,
45, 1007–1014.
38. Einasto, J. On the construction of a composite model for the galaxy and on the determination of
the system of galactic parameters. Tr. Astrofiz. Inst. Alma Ata 1965, 5, 87–100.
Galaxies 2013, 1 28

39. Gillessen, S.; Eisenhauer, F.; Trippe, S.; Alexander, T.; Genzel, R.; Martins, F.; Ott, T. Monitoring
stellar orbits around the massive black hole in the galactic center. Astrophys. J. 2009, 692,
1075–1109.
40. Zakharov, A.F.; Nucita, A.A.; de Paolis, F.; Ingrosso, G. Apoastron shift constraints on dark matter
distribution at the Galactic Center. Phys. Rev. D 2007, 76, 062001:1–062001:6.
41. Zakharov, A.F.; de Paolis, F.; Ingrosso, G.; Nucita, A.A. Constraints on parameters of dark matter
and black hole in the Galactic Center. Phys. At. Nucl. 2010, 73, 1870–1877.
42. Blanchet, L.; Novak, J. External field effect of modified Newtonian dynamics in the Solar System.
Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2011, 412, 2530–2542.
43. Fienga, A.; Laskar, J.; Kuchynka, P.; Manche, H.; Desvignes, G.; Gastineau, M.; Cognard, I.;
Theureau, G. The INPOP10a planetary ephemeris and its applications in fundamental physics.
Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 2011, 111, 363–385.
44. Hees, A.; Lamine, B.; Reynaud, S.; Jaekel, M.T.; Le Poncin-Lafitte, C.; Lainey, V.; Füzfa, A.;
Courty, J.M.; Dehant, V.; Wolf, P. Radioscience simulations in general relativity and in
alternative theories of gravity. Class. Quantum Gravity 2012, 29, 235027, doi:10.1088/0264-
9381/29/23/235027.
45. Goldman, I.; Nussinov, S. Weakly interacting massive particles and neutron stars. Phys. Rev. D
1989, 40, 3221–3230.
46. Gould, A.; Draine, B.T.; Romani, R.W.; Nussinov, S. Neutron stars: Graveyard of charged dark
matter. Phys. Lett. B 1990, 238, 337–343.
47. Laarakkers, W.G.; Poisson, E. Quadrupole moments of rotating neutron stars. Astrophys. J. 1999,
512, 282–287.
48. Bertone, G.; Fairbairn, M. Compact stars as dark matter probes. Phys. Rev. D 2008, 77,
043515:1–043515:9.
49. Kouvaris, C. WIMP annihilation and cooling of neutron stars. Phys. Rev. D 2008, 77,
023006:1–023006:9.
50. Kouvaris, C.; Tinyakov, P. Can neutron stars constrain dark matter? Phys. Rev. D 2010,
82, 063531:1–063531:9.
51. De Lavallaz, A.; Fairbairn, M. Neutron stars as dark matter probes. Phys. Rev. D 2010,
81, 123521:1–123521:10.
52. Gonzalez, D.; Reisenegger, A. Internal heating of old neutron stars: contrasting different
mechanisms. Astron. Astrophys. 2010, 522, A16:1–A16:7.
53. Ciarcelluti, P.; Sandin, F. Have neutron stars a dark matter core? Phys. Lett. B 2011, 695, 19–21.
54. Bromley, B.C. Gravitationally focused dark matter around compact stars. Astrophys. J. Suppl.
2011, 197, 37:1–37:4.
55. Yang, R.Z.; Fan, Y.Z.; Waldman, R.; Chang, J. Dark matter mini-halo around the compact objects:
the formation, evolution and possible contribution to the cosmic ray electrons/positrons. J. Cosmol.
Astropart. Phys. 2012, 2012, 023, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/01/023.
56. Haber, H.E.; Kane, G.L. The search for supersymmetry: Probing physics beyond the standard
model. Phys. Rep. 1985, 117, 75–263.
Galaxies 2013, 1 29

57. Zabalza, V.; Bosch-Ramon, V.; Aharonian, F.; Khangulyan, D. Unraveling the high-energy
emission components of gamma-ray binaries. Astron. Astrophys. 2013, 551, A17:1–A17:7.
58. Guillemot, L.; Kramer, M.; Johnson, T.J.; Craig, H.A.; Romani, R.W.; Venter, C.; Harding, A.K.;
Ferdman, R.D.; Stairs, I.H.; Kerr, M. Fermi LAT pulsed detection of PSR J0737-3039A in the
double pulsar system. Astrophys. J. 2013, 768, 169:1–169:9.
59. Burgay, M.; D’Amico, N.; Possenti, A.; Manchester, R.N.; Lyne, A.G.; Joshi, B.C.;
McLaughlin, M.A.; Kramer, M.; Sarkissian, J.M.; Camilo, F.; et al. An increased estimate of
the merger rate of double neutron stars from observations of a highly relativistic system. Nature
2003, 426, 531–533.
60. Lyne, A.G.; Burgay, M.; Kramer, M.; Possenti, A.; Manchester, R.N.; Camilo, F.;
McLaughlin, M.A.; Lorimer, D.R.; D’Amico, N.; Joshi, B.C.; et al. A double-pulsar system:
A rare laboratory for relativistic gravity and plasma physics. Science 2004, 303, 1153–1157.
61. Kramer, M.; Stairs, I.H.; Manchester, R.N.; McLaughlin, M.A.; Lyne, A.G.; Ferdman, R.D.;
Burgay, M.; Lorimer, D.R.; Possenti, A.; D’Amico, N.; et al. Tests of general relativity from
timing the double pulsar. Science 2006, 314, 97–102.
62. Iorio, L. Constraining the cosmological constant and the DGP gravity with the double pulsar PSR
J0737-3039. New Astron. 2009, 14, 196–199.
63. Gondolo, P.; Silk, J. Dark matter annihilation at the galactic center. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1999,
83, 1719–1722.
64. Hall, J.; Gondolo, P. Stellar orbit constraints on neutralino annihilation at the galactic center. Phys.
Rev. D 2006, 74, 063511:1–063511:15.
65. Merritt, D. Dark Matter at the Centers of Galaxies. In Particle Dark Matter: Observations, Models
and Searches; Bertone, G., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; Chapter 5,
pp. 83–98.
66. Sadeghian, L.; Ferrer, F.; Will, C.M. Dark matter distribution in the Schwarzschild geometry. APS
April Meet. Abstr. 2012, 57, Abstract: X8.00003.
67. Kuhlen, M.; Guedes, J.; Pillepich, A.; Madau, P.; Mayer, L. An off-center density peak in the milky
way’s dark matter halo? Astrophys. J. 2013, 765, 10:1–10:13.
68. Belikov, A.V.; Zaharijas, G.; Silk, J. Study of the gamma-ray spectrum from the Galactic Center in
view of multi-TeV dark matter candidates. Phys. Rev. D 2012, 86, 083516:1–083516:15.
69. Laha, R.; Ng, K.C.Y.; Dasgupta, B.; Horiuchi, S. Galactic Center radio constraints on gamma-ray
lines from dark matter annihilation. Phys. Rev. D 2013, 87, 043516:1–043516:15.
70. Lavalle, J.; Salati, P. Dark matter indirect signatures. Comptes Rendus Phys. 2012, 13, 740–782.
71. Bringmann, T.; Weniger, C. Gamma ray signals from dark matter: Concepts, status and prospects.
Phys. Dark Univ. 2012, 1, 194–217.
72. Gillessen, S.; Eisenhauer, F.; Fritz, T.K.; Bartko, H.; Dodds-Eden, K.; Pfuhl, O.; Ott, T.;
Genzel, R. The orbit of the star S2 around SGR A* from very large telescope and keck data.
Astrophys. J. Lett. 2009, 707, L114–L117.
73. Meyer, L.; Ghez, A.M.; Schödel, R.; Yelda, S.; Boehle, A.; Lu, J.R.; Do, T.; Morris, M.R.;
Becklin, E.E.; Matthews, K. The shortest-known-period star orbiting our galaxy’s supermassive
black hole. Science 2012, 338, 84–87.
Galaxies 2013, 1 30

74. Melia, F. The Galactic Supermassive Black Hole; Princeton University Press: Princeton,
NJ, USA, 2007.
75. Bahcall, J.N.; Wolf, R.A. The star distribution around a massive black hole in a globular cluster. II.
Unequal star masses. Astrophys. J. 1977, 216, 883–907.
76. Young, P. Numerical models of star clusters with a central black hole. I—Adiabatic models.
Astrophys. J. 1980, 242, 1232–1237.
77. Genzel, R.; Schödel, R.; Ott, T.; Eisenhauer, F.; Hofmann, R.; Lehnert, M.; Eckart, A.;
Alexander, T.; Sternberg, A.; Lenzen, R.; et al. The stellar cusp around the supermassive black
hole in the galactic center. Astrophys. J. 2003, 594, 812–832.
78. Abramowitz, M.; Stegun, I.A. Handbook of Mathematical Functions; Dover: New York, NY,
USA, 1972.

c 2013 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).