CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,099Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations

The mass distribution and gravitational potential of the Milky Way

Open access
McMillan, Paul J.·2017·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
DOI 10.1093/mnras/stw2759
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We present mass models of the Milky Way created to fit observational constraints and to be consistent with expectations from theoretical modelling. The method used to create these models is that demonstrated in our previous study, and we improve on those models by adding gas discs to the potential, considering the effects of allowing the inner slope of the halo density profile to vary, and including new observations of maser sources in the Milky Way amongst the new constraints. We provide a best-fitting model, as well as estimates of the properties of the Milky Way. Under the assumptions in our main model, we find that the Sun is R0 = 8.20 ± 0.09 kpc from the Galactic Centre, with the circular speed at the Sun being v0 = 232.8 ± 3.0 km s−1; and that the Galaxy has a total stellar mass of (54.3 ± 5.7) × 109 M⊙, a total virial mass of (1.30 ± 0.30) × 1012 M⊙ and a local dark-matter density of 0.40 ± 0.04 GeV cm−3, where the quoted uncertainties are statistical. These values are sensitive to our choice of priors and constraints. We investigate systematic uncertainties, which in some cases may be larger. For example, if we weaken our prior on R0, we find it to be 7.97 ± 0.15 kpc and that v0 = 226.8 ± 4.2 km s−1. We find that most of these properties, including the local dark-matter density, are remarkably insensitive to the assumed power-law density slope at the centre of the dark-matter halo. We find that it is unlikely that the local standard of rest differs significantly from that found under assumptions of axisymmetry. We have made code to compute the force from our potential, and to integrate orbits within it, publicly available.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stw2759

Cites

127 of 127 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most studies that assume an NFW profile for the Galactic halo argue that the halo has a very high concentration, typically ∼14 or higher.

    “Such studies argue that the Galactic halo has a very high concentration, typically ∼ 14 or higher”

    From The milky way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2 (2020) · cites this paper as McMillan 2017

    Section 5 (pp. 6–7) says McMillan’s main model assumes an NFW halo and gives its best-fitting concentration as 15.4, supporting one instance above ∼14. The paper does not establish that NFW-based studies typically find concentrations of ∼14 or higher; its concentration prior is 12.9 with about 30% uncertainty (p. 4). (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The stellar mass M⋆ ∼ 4×10^10 M⊙ is in good agreement with estimates for the MW.

    “This stellar mass is in good agreement with estimates for the MW (e.g. Bovy & Rix 2013; McMillan 2017, and Section 5)”

    From The milky way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2 (2020) · cites this paper as McMillan 2017

    McMillan’s main model estimates the Milky Way’s total stellar mass at (5.43 ± 0.57) × 10^10 M⊙ (Abstract, p. 1; Section 5, p. 7). That is the same broad scale as 4 × 10^10 M⊙, but it is higher and the quoted statistical range does not include 4 × 10^10 M⊙, so the claimed good agreement is qualified. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Even more flexible formulae, such as the generalised NFW profile, struggle to describe the radial profile of the contracted halo.

    “and even more flexible formulae, such as the generalised NFW profile (gNFW, which has been used to model the MW halo - McMillan 2017; Karukes et al. 2019b), struggle to describe the radial profile of the contracted halo.”

    From The milky way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2 (2020) · cites this paper as McMillan 2017

  • The HI mass is 1.1 × 10^10 M_sun and the molecular gas mass is 10 percent of the HI mass.

    “They correspond to an HI mass of 1 . 1 × 10 10 M ⊙ and a molecular gas mass of 10 percent of the HI mass.”

    From The milky way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2 (2020) · cites this paper as McMillan 2017

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 128 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Bland-Hawthorn J., Gerhard O., 2016, preprint, ( arXiv:1602.07702 ) · arXiv
  2. Bobylev V. V., Bajkova A. T., 2013, Astronomy Letters, 39, 809
  3. Boehle A., et al., 2016, preprint, ( arXiv:1607.05726 ) · arXiv
  4. Gaia Collaboration 2016, preprint, ( arXiv:1609.04153 ) · arXiv
  5. Metropolis N., Rosenbluth A. W., Rosenbluth M. N., Teller A. H., Teller E., 1953, Journal of Chemical Physics, 21, 10871092
  6. Portail M., Gerhard O., Wegg C., Ness M., 2016, preprint, ( arXiv:1608.07954 ) · arXiv
  7. Thomas G. F., Ibata R., Famaey B., Martin N. F., Lewis G. F., 2016, preprint, ( arXiv:1605.05520 ) · arXiv
  8. Wilson J. C., Hearty F., Skrutskie M. F., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. , doi:10.1117 / 12.856708
  9. Zigmanovic E., 2016, Master's thesis, Lund Observatory, Lund University, Sweden

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McMillan, P. J.
Affiliations
Lund University (SE)
Corresponding author
McMillan, Paul J.
ORCID
McMillan, Paul J.
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2016-10-26
Volume
465
Issue
1
Pages
76-94
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
DOI
10.1093/mnras/stw2759
OpenAlex
W2485876312
Cited by
1,099
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 104 · 2025: 165 · 2024: 154 · 2023: 126 · 2022: 120 · 2021: 121 · 2020: 118 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 3
FWCI
30.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Keywords
Milky Way mass distribution, gravitational potential, dark matter halos, stellar mass, virial mass, local dark matter density, local standard of rest, halo density profiles, gas discs, orbit integration, axial symmetry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review