CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 16Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesStellar, planetary, and galactic studies

Weighing Milky Way and Andromeda in an expanding $Λ$CDM Universe: Decreasing the Local Group mass

Open access
Benisty, David·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2401.09546arXiv 2401.09546
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The dynamics of the Local Group (LG), especially the contribution of the Milky Way (MW) and Andromeda (M31) galaxies, is sensitive to the presence of dark energy. This work analyzes the evolution of the LG by considering it as a two-body problem in a homogeneous and isotropic expanding spacetime in a full $Λ$ cold dark matter $(Λ$CDM) background. Using the timing argument (TA), which links LG dynamics to LG mass, we find that the complete $Λ$CDM background predicts a $\sim 10 \%$ lower mass for the LG; while $Λ$ alone predicts a $\sim 10 \%$ higher mass. The TA mass is modified by (i) simulations and (ii) the effect of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) to alleviate the poorly constrained internal mass distributions of M31 and the MW, their time evolution, and the unknown distribution of dark matter between them. First, using IllustrisTNG simulations, we accounted for the effects of two extended halos and their environment (rather than point particles) and predicted their mass $\left(3.89 \pm 0.62\right) \cdot 10^{12} M_{\odot}$. Second, the LMC effectively changes the separation and velocities of M31 toward the MW and reduces the predicted mass to $\left(2.33 \pm 0.72\right) \cdot 10^{12} M_\odot$. Despite the uncertainties around dark matter between these galaxies, the overall estimated mass is compatible with the mere sum of the MW and M31 masses. The total mass of the TA is compatible with other estimates, such as the Hubble flow and the Virial Theorem with other dwarf galaxies. The combined result shows, for the first time, that a lower mass estimate can be obtained from the TA, with a consistent embedding and other systematic effects, and without an additional dark matter halo around the galaxies.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2401.09546

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Given (r0 = 770 kpc, vr = -110 km/s, t0 = 13.8 Gyr), numerical solution gives M_LG ≈ (4.7 ± 0.6) × 10^12 M⊙.

    “Given ( r 0 = 770 kpc, vr = -110 km s -1 , t 0 = 13 . 8 Gyr), numerical solution gives M LG ≈ (4 . 7 ± 0 . 6) × 10 12 M ⊙ (Benisty, 2024).”

    From The rotation curve of the Milky Way: State of the art, the Keplerian decline debate, and implications for dark matter (2026) · cites this paper as Benisty, 2024

    Section 3.1 (pp. 2–3) describes numerically solving the timing argument and gives a separation of 0.77 Mpc and a radial-velocity magnitude of 109.3 km/s, close to the cited inputs. It reports about 4.6 × 10^12 M⊙ for the Newtonian model, but does not report the claimed 4.7 ± 0.6 × 10^12 M⊙; its full ΛCDM model instead yields about 4 × 10^12 M⊙. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Aghanim, N. et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]
  2. Chernin, A. D., Teerikorpi, P., Valtonen, M. J., et al. 2009, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:0902.3871 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Benisty, D.
Affiliations
University of Helsinki (FI)
Corresponding author
Benisty, David
ORCID
Benisty, David
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Volume
689
Pages
L1-L1
ISSN
0004-6361 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2401.09546
arXiv
2401.09546
OpenAlex
W4401977433
Cited by
15
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4
FWCI
2.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Springer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Keywords
Local Group dynamics, Milky Way mass, M31, timing argument, dark energy, dark matter, Large Magellanic Cloud, two-body problem, galaxy mass estimation, Hubble flow, virial theorem

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