Weighing Milky Way and Andromeda in an Expanding $\Lambda$CDM Universe: Resolving the Local Group mass tension

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 compares the evolution of the LG by considering it as a two-body problem in a homogeneous and isotropic expanding spacetime in a full $\Lambda$CDM background. Using the Timing Argument (which links LG dynamics to LG mass) we find that the full $\Lambda$CDM background predicts a $\sim 10\%$ lower mass for the LG while $\Lambda$ alone predicts a $\sim 10\%$ higher mass. By the calibration of the IllustrisTNG simulations, the TA mass is shown to be biased high, and modified to be $\left(3.89\pm 0.62\right)\cdot 10^{12}M_{\odot}$. The Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) and the MW Center Of Mass (COM) reduce the LG mass to be $\left(2.33\pm 0.72\right)\cdot 10^{12}M_{\odot}$. The overall estimated mass is compatible with the total sum of masses of MW and M31 (including their halos) estimated independently. The mass also is compatible with other estimations such as the Hubble flow, the Virial Theorem with the other dwarf galaxies and different Machine Learning methods based on LG-like pairs from simulations. These results resolve the controversy between the TA based estimations and the other probes in the literature.

I Introduction

Dark energy is an unknown type of energy that influences the universe on its largest scales (Peebles and Ratra, 2003). Beyond its impact on large scales, dark energy exerts a significant influence on the Local Universe (Chernin et al., 2004, 2006; Peirani and Pacheco, 2008; Chernin et al., 2015; Karachentsev et al., 2009). The cosmological constant ($\Lambda$) alters the predicted mass of the LG of galaxies, assuming that it mainly consists of MW and M31 forming a two-body system (Chernin et al., 2009; Partridge et al., 2013). An elegant approach to infer the total mass of the LG is the Timing Argument (TA) that connects the observed kinematics of the LG to the LG mass (Kahn and Woltjer, 1959; Lynden-Bell, 1981; Raychaudhury and Lynden-Bell, 1989; Sawala et al., 2023a). This argument assumes that the present system is on its first encounter in a two body orbit which has been expanding from the Big Bang until now. Initially only assuming a radial velocity, the TA has since been extended to include eccentricity (Li and White, 2008) and the recoil velocity of the MW with respect to the LMC (Chamberlain et al., 2023; Benisty et al., 2022). However, the TA estimated mass alone is biased high compared to simulation based estimates.

A non trivial effect of the LG is the repulsion effect of $\Lambda$. The TA mass is predicted to be about 10% higher in the presence of $\Lambda$ (Partridge et al., 2013) due to a constant repulsion force that needs to be compensated for by a higher mass and a higher Newtonian attraction force. This letter shows that including the complete $\Lambda$ Cold Dark Matter ($\Lambda$CDM) history predicts 10% lower mass from the TA mass, since in earlier times, the embedding gives an attraction force. With simulation calibration and the effect of the LMC this letter resolves the tension between the TA predicted masses and the other estimates for the LG mass. Moreover, the sum of the individual masses of MW and M31 with their halos fits for the estimation here, and confirms that the LG mass is probably no more than the sum of its parts.

II The Embedding Spacetime

The spacetime that approximates the two-body problem can be written as a test body of reduced mass in a gravitational potential embedded in two possible background metrics:

(i) De Sitter–Schwarzschild (dSS) Metric has a spherical-symmetric form where only $\Lambda$ drives the expansion: $ds^{2}=-(1-\Phi)\,dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{1-\Phi}+r^{2}d\Omega^{2}\,$ with the potential $\Phi=2GM/(rc^{2})+\Lambda r^{2}/6$. A test particle in the dSS metric at the low-energy limit ($\Phi\ll 1$) obeys the Equation of Motion (EoM):

$$\ddot{r}/r=-GM/r^{3}+\left(l/r^{2}\right)^{2}+\Omega_{\Lambda}H_{0}^{2},$$ (1)

where $r$ is the separation, $M$ is the total mass of the binary system, $G$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant, and $c$ is the speed of light, $l$ is the conserved angular momentum over the reduced mass.

(ii) McVittie (McV) Metric describes a massive object immersed in an expanding cosmological spacetime (McVittie, 1933; Kaloper et al., 2010) and the full $\Lambda$ Cold Dark Matter model impacts the binary motion. The metric reads: $ds^{2}=-(1-\Phi_{N})\,dt^{2}+{a(t)^{2}dr^{2}/(1-\Phi_{N})}+a(t)^{2}r^{2}\,d\Omega^{2}\,$, where $a(t)$ is the scale factor of the universe and $\Phi_{N}=2GM/(rc^{2})$. In the low-energy limit ($\Phi_{N}\ll 1$ and $rH(t)\ll 1$) the equation of motion reads (Sereno and Jetzer, 2007; Faraoni and Jacques, 2007; Nandra et al., 2012):

$$\ddot{r}/r=-GM/r^{3}+\left(l/r^{2}\right)^{2}+\ddot{a}/a.$$ (2)

The main difference between the two descriptions is thus the $\Lambda c^{2}/3$ vs. $\ddot{a}/a$ term in Eqs. (1) and (2). Fig. (1) shows the ratio between these two contributions over the cosmic time, assuming the $\Lambda$CDM model. While $\Lambda c^{2}/3$ remains constant, for $z>0.67$ the $\ddot{a}/a$ acts as an attractive force. This work shows that these two different embeddings yield different LG masses. Thus, only based on the LG mass and dynamics, we show that $\ddot{a}/a$ describes the LG history more consistently.

The peculiar motion of M31 is added to the Hubble expansion via the known relations: $v_{\text{LoS}}=v_{pec}+H_{0}r_{0}$, where $v_{\text{LoS}}$ is the line of sight velocity, $v_{pec}$ is the projected peculiar velocity and $d$ is the distance towards M31. This relation could be obtained by integrating Eq. (2) over time, which shows that $\ddot{a}/a$ is consistent from a theoretical point of view.

Figure 1: The ratio between $\ddot{a}/a$ and $\Lambda c^{2}/3$ vs. time assuming the $\Lambda$CDM model. Asymptotically, both models approach the same value. For the $\ddot{a}/a$ case, the expansion rate of the Universe creates an attractive force at early times and only becomes repulsive at late times.

III The Timing Argument and Other Effects

III.1 Timing Argument Mass

The TA mass is numerically calculated for a chosen separation and velocities. We numerically solve Eq. (1) or Eq. (2) by integrating backwards in time to the Big Bang, where the age of the Universe for $\Lambda$CDM is:

$$\begin{split}t_{U}=2/3H_{0}\sqrt{\Omega_{\Lambda}}\sinh^{-1}\sqrt{\Omega_{\Lambda}/(1-\Omega_{\Lambda})}\;.\end{split}$$ (3)

The separation and the radial velocity of M31 from us are known from (van der Marel et al., 2012): $r_{0}=0.77\pm 0.04\,Mpc$ and $v_{r}=-109.3\pm 4.4\,km/sec$. However, there are different estimations for tangential velocities: from $v_{\rm{tan}}<17\,{km/sec}$ (van der Marel et al., 2012), to $57^{+31}_{-35}\,{km/sec}$ (van der Marel et al., 2019) and the latest estimate $82.4\pm 31.2\,{km/sec}$ (Salomon et al., 2021). (Benisty et al., 2022) shows that a higher tangential velocity predicts a larger LG mass, but here we use the $57^{+31}_{-35}\,{km/sec}$ estimate.

Figure 2: The separation at the Big Bang between MW and M31 for different forces. The minima identify the TA masses, since they satisfy the condition $r\left[t=0\right]=0$. The TA mass for the $\Lambda$ embedding is higher mass then the Newtonian TA, and the $\ddot{a}/a$ embedded mass is the lowest one.

Fig. (2) shows the separation of LG-like systems for different background models: a purely Newtonian model, adding the Cosmological Constant correction $\Lambda$ (dSS), and the embedding in an expanding $\Lambda$CDM Universe $\ddot{a}/a$ (McV). The best solution for the minimal separation indicates the TA mass $M_{TA}$. The predicted TA mass from $\Lambda$ ($\sim 5\cdot 10^{12}\,M_{\odot}$) is higher than the one of the purely Newtonian model ($\sim 4.6\cdot 10^{12}\,M_{\odot}$) since one needs to overcome the repulsion force of $\Lambda$ via stronger Newtonian attraction. The $\ddot{a}/a$ model yields the lowest mass ($\sim 4\cdot 10^{12}\,M_{\odot}$), since the $\ddot{a}/a$ acts as an attractive force at early times, thus less gravitational attraction (via mass) is needed.

The Hubble parameter enters both in the propagation of the separation at the Big Bang (the age of the Universe from Eq. (3)) and also for the force from the embedding. Fig (3) shows the dependence between the predicted mass based on the TA vs the age of the Universe (left) and vs the value of the Hubble parameter $H_{0}$ (right). For a larger age of the Universe, the predicted TA mass is lower, and for larger $H_{0}$ the TA mass is higher. For all of these cases, the TA+$\Lambda$ mass is the highest and the TA$+\ddot{a}/a$ mass is the lowest one. For the same mass, the age of the Universe predicted by McV would be the higher one, since systematically the TA mass from the McV spacetime is the lowest one.

Figure 3: The dependence between the predicted mass based on the TA vs the age of the Universe (left) and vs the value of the Hubble parameter $H_{0}$ (right), with the mean values of the separation and the radial velocity. For larger Universe age the predicted TA mass is lower and for larger $H_{0}$ the TA mass is higher. The TA +$\Lambda$ mass is always the highest and the TA + $\ddot{a}/a$ mass is the lowest one for any $H_{0}$.

III.2 Simulation Calibration

Owing to simplifications in the TA, the mass estimate may suffer from systematic bias and scatter. Li and White (2008) finds that the TA mass is unbiased, though with some scatter, using LG pair analogues from the Millenium simulation. However, Gonzalez et al. (2014) notes the TA mass is only unbiased on average and can be an overestimate if the pairs are restricted to have similar radial and tangential velocities as the virilized MW and M31 masses. Sawala et al. (2023b) finds that the TA mass is compatible with the mass enclosed within the relative separation between the pair and finds that this mass remains invariant in time. Hartl and Strigari (2022) uses the IllustrisTNG N-body and hydrodynamical simulations and finds a tendency of the TA mass to be overestimated. Hartl and Strigari (2022) identifies a sample of $\sim 600$ pairs and by imposing the cuts: (i) $r\in[650,950]\,$kpc; (ii) a mass ratio within a factor of 4; (iii) $v_{r}\in[-200,-50]\,km/s$ (iv) $v_{\text{tan}}\in[50,200]\,km/s$ so that it resembles the observed distribution of the LG. Fig 4 shows the correlation between the TA mass and the simulation-based mass, with a ratio of $\text{P}(M_{vir}/M_{TA})=0.82\pm 0.20$.

III.3 The Impact of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC)

The LMC attracts the center of the MW and perturbs the LG motion. Consequently, its separation and velocities are altered. Peñarrubia et al. (2016) accounts for the LMC in their LG mass estimation (with the Hubble flow) assuming that it forms a two-point mass system with the MW, and that M31 moves around the barycenter of the combined system. Another approach of Correa Magnus and Vasiliev (2022) finds the corresponding separation and velocities of the MW-M31 system, by computing the past trajectory of the MW and the LMC under their mutual gravitational attraction, and then integrates it forward without the LMC to the present epoch. Using the approach of Correa Magnus and Vasiliev (2022), Benisty et al. (2022) shows that the use of a prior from van der Marel et al. (2019) results in a lower tangential velocity, $v_{tan}=-59\pm 34km/s$, the radial velocity changes to $-75\pm 15\,km/s$ and the separation increases by $40\,kpc$.

Figure 4: The correlation between the TA mass and the simulation based mass. These $\sim 600$ pairs are selected from the IllustrisTNG cosmological simulation, in which the mass correction factor is computed as the ratio of the virilized halo mass of both galaxies to the mass obtained by the Newtonian TA. The masses ratio reads $M_{\text{vir}}/M_{\text{TA}}=0.82\pm 0.20$.

IV The LG mass and Discussion

Different equations of motion and different histories yield different LG masses. Fig. (5) shows the different predicted masses for the different histories. The $\ddot{a}/a$ model gives the lowest mass and the $\Lambda$ embedding requires the largest mass. The Newtonian TA mass is $\left(4.65\pm 0.48\right)\cdot 10^{12}\,M_{\odot}$ and the presence of $\Lambda$ increases this mass by $0.75\sigma$ to $\left(5.18\pm 0.54\right)\cdot 10^{12}\,M_{\odot}$. In a complete $\Lambda$ CDM background, the predicted mass reduces by $0.56\sigma$ (from the Newtonian TA mass) to $\left(4.29\pm 0.45\right)\cdot 10^{12}\,M_{\odot}$.

Figure 5: The predicted total mass of the LG of galaxies based on the proper motion of M31 towards us (TA) with the simulation calibrations. The figure compares masses inferred from different embeddings with $\ddot{a}/a$ vs. pure $\Lambda$, and from different methods in the literature: The virial theorem (Diaz et al., 2014), the Hubble flow  (Peñarrubia et al., 2014), the TA + $\Lambda$ + LMC (Benisty et al., 2022), Artificial Neural Networks on simulated pairs (McLeod et al., 2017) and Gaussian Processes on simulated pairs (Sawala et al., 2023b). The red area shows the uniform range $M_{MW}+M_{31}\in[1.9,3.3]\cdot 10^{12}\,M_{\odot}$ which is based on complementary mass estimates (Wang et al., 2020; Sawala et al., 2023b).

Simulations of galaxy pairs predict a lower mass since the simulations take into account the extent of the galaxy halo density instead of assuming point particles (Sawala et al., 2023b). For example, TA predicts $[4,5]\cdot 10^{12}\,M_{\odot}$ and machine learning approaches in simulated pairs predict $\sim 3\cdot 10^{12}\cdot M_{\odot}$ (McLeod et al., 2017; Sawala et al., 2023b). One exceptional case is the analysis with a likelihood free approach, that predicts a broader range for the mass: $4.6^{+2.3}_{-1.8}\cdot 10^{12}\,M_{\odot}$ with large errors (Lemos et al., 2021). By choosing the ten closest matches from the simulated pairs to the data, the predicted mass reduces to $\sim 3.5\dot{1}0^{12}\,M_{\odot}$ which is compatible with the Machine Learning approaches.

The LMC reduces the predicted mass due to the shift of the MW to about $\sim 2\cdot 10^{12}\,M_{\odot}$, as noted in Peñarrubia et al. (2016); Benisty et al. (2022). The result in compatible with other probes in the literature, which is the virial theorem of the MW-M31 system with the other dwarf galaxies (Diaz et al., 2014; Hartl and Strigari, 2022), or fitting the motions of the dwarf galaxies to the Hubble flow  (Peirani and de Freitas Pacheco, 2006; Peirani and Pacheco, 2008; Karachentsev et al., 2009; Peñarrubia et al., 2014; Teerikorpi and Chernin, 2010; Del Popolo and Chan, 2022). The result in this paper reaches a comparable mass only from the MW-M31-LMC independently of the motions of the dwarf galaxies.

We compare our total mass estimates with the sum of individual galaxies. There are several values for the separate masses of each galaxy in the literature: $M_{MW}\in[0.9,1.3]\cdot 10^{12}\,M_{\odot}$ (Wang et al., 2020) and $M_{31}\in[1.,2.]\cdot 10^{12}\,M_{\odot}$ (Sawala et al., 2023b) and references therein. The red area in Fig. (5) shows the uniform range $M_{MW}+M_{31}\in[1.9,3.3]\cdot 10^{12}\,M_{\odot}$. The masses from the virial theorem and the Hubble flow (which are biased low) are fully within the total mass estimate. In an earlier study, Benisty et al. (2022) uses the TA in a $\Lambda$ embedding with the simulation calibration and the impact of the LMC and obtains a mass which falls into the red area but is biased high. In this research, we change the $\Lambda$ embedding into the full $\ddot{a}/a$ embedding in a $\Lambda$CDM Universe, and we see a stronger compatibility with the independent probes. This gives more evidence for taking the complete $\Lambda$CDM history into account, even for such a close-by galaxy.

Overall, we conclude that the LG mass derived via the TA if calibrated against realistic analogues in simulations, is in reasonable agreement with the mass known to be associated with the $\ddot{a}/a$ embadding. The correct spacetime is compatible with solutions that use data of dwarf galaxies around the LG (viralization and the Hubble flow). The LMC is an important ingredient to estimate the total mass and, with proper embedding, the total mass is compatible with the sum of its parts.