Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

The Relevance of Dynamical Friction for the MW/LMC/SMC Triple System

Published 26 Mar 2024 in astro-ph.GA and astro-ph.CO | (2403.17999v1)

Abstract: Simulations of structure formation in the standard cold dark matter cosmological model quantify the dark matter halos of galaxies. Taking into account dynamical friction between the dark matter halos, we investigate the past orbital dynamical evolution of the Magellanic Clouds in the presence of the Galaxy. Our calculations are based on a three-body model of rigid Navarro-Frenk-White profiles for the dark matter halos, but were verified in a previous publication by comparison to high-resolution N-body simulations of live self-consistent systems. Under the requirement that the LMC and SMC had an encounter within 20 kpc between 1 and 4 Gyr ago, in order to allow the development of the Magellanic Stream, and using the latest astrometric data, the dynamical evolution of the MW/LMC/SMC system is calculated backwards in time. With the employment of the genetic algorithm and a Markov-Chain Monte-Carlo method, the present state of this system is unlikely with a probability of <10{-9} (6 sigma complement), because solutions found do not fit into the error bars for the observed plane-of-sky velocity components of the Magellanic Clouds. This implies that orbital solutions that assume dark matter halos according to cosmological structure formation theory to exist around the Magellanic Clouds and the Milky Way are not possible with a confidence of more than 6 sigma

Authors (2)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (74)
  1. The cosmological constant and cold dark matter. Nature 1990, 348, 705–707. https://doi.org/10.1038/348705a0.
  2. The observational case for a low-density Universe with a non-zero cosmological constant. Nature 1995, 377, 600–602. https://doi.org/10.1038/377600a0.
  3. The cosmological constant and dark energy. Reviews of Modern Physics 2003, 75, 559–606, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/0207347]. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.75.559.
  4. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. arXiv e-prints 2018, p. arXiv:1807.06209, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1807.06209].
  5. The many tensions with dark-matter based models and implications on the nature of the Universe. arXiv e-prints 2023, p. arXiv:2309.11552, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/2309.11552]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.11552.
  6. Angular Momentum Profiles of Warm Dark Matter Halos. ApJL 2002, 564, L1–L4, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/0109432]. https://doi.org/10.1086/338863.
  7. The dynamics of subhaloes in warm dark matter models. MNRAS 2008, 386, 1029–1037, [arXiv:astro-ph/0802.1628]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13102.x.
  8. Paduroiu, S. Warm Dark Matter in Simulations. Universe 2022, 8, 76. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe8020076.
  9. Inferring warm dark matter masses with deep learning. MNRAS 2024, 527, 739–755, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/2304.14432]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad3260.
  10. Baudis, L. Dark matter searches. Annalen der Physik 2016, 528, 74–83, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1509.00869]. https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.201500114.
  11. Zitzer, B.; VERITAS Collaboration. A Search for Dark Matter from Dwarf Galaxies using VERITAS. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP2016). 3-10 August 2016. Chicago, 2016, p. 446, [arXiv:astro-ph.HE/1509.01105].
  12. A global analysis of dark matter signals from 27 dwarf spheroidal galaxies using 11 years of Fermi-LAT observations. J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2020, 2020, 012, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1812.06986]. https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/02/012.
  13. Ferreira, E.G.M. Ultra-Light Dark Matter. arXiv e-prints 2020, p. arXiv:2005.03254v1, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/2005.03254].
  14. Dark matter or correlated errors? Systematics of the AMS-02 antiproton excess. arXiv e-prints 2020, p. arXiv:2005.04237v1, [ArXiv:astro-ph.HE/2005.04237].
  15. Landim, R.G. Constraining dark photon dark matter with fast radio bursts. arXiv e-prints 2020, p. arXiv:2005.08621, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/2005.08621].
  16. Salucci, P. The distribution of dark matter in galaxies. A&A Rv. 2019, 27, 2, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1811.08843]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00159-018-0113-1.
  17. Tracing Galaxy Formation with Stellar Halos. I. Methods. ApJ 2005, 635, 931–949, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/0506467]. https://doi.org/10.1086/497422.
  18. MEGA: Merger graphs of structure formation. MNRAS 2020, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2003.01187]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa982.
  19. Milgrom, M. A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis. ApJ 1983, 270, 365–370. https://doi.org/10.1086/161130.
  20. Does the missing mass problem signal the breakdown of Newtonian gravity? ApJ 1984, 286, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1086/162570.
  21. Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND): Observational Phenomenology and Relativistic Extensions. Living Reviews in Relativity 2012, 15, 10, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1112.3960]. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2012-10.
  22. From Galactic Bars to the Hubble Tension: Weighing Up the Astrophysical Evidence for Milgromian Gravity. Symmetry 2022, 14, 1331, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/2110.06936]. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym14071331.
  23. Star formation triggered by galaxy interactions in modified gravity. MNRAS 2016, 463, 3637–3652, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1609.04407]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw2331.
  24. Local Group timing in Milgromian dynamics. A past Milky Way-Andromeda encounter at z > 0.8. A&A 2013, 557, L3, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1306.6628]. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321879.
  25. MOND simulation suggests an origin for some peculiarities in the Local Group. A&A 2018, 614, A59, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1712.04938]. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201731939.
  26. 3D hydrodynamic simulations for the formation of the Local Group satellite planes. MNRAS 2022, 513, 129–158, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2204.09687]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac722.
  27. The Formation of Exponential Disk Galaxies in MOND. ApJ 2020, 890, 173, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2002.01941]. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d73.
  28. The formation of early-type galaxies through monolithic collapse of gas clouds in Milgromian gravity. MNRAS 2022, 516, 1081–1093, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2209.00024]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2229.
  29. Simulations of star-forming main-sequence galaxies in Milgromian gravity. MNRAS 2023, 519, 5128–5148, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2212.07447]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac3645.
  30. Galaxy Cluster Bulk Flows and Collision Velocities in QUMOND. ApJ 2013, 772, 10, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1305.3651]. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/10.
  31. Hydrodynamical structure formation in Milgromian cosmology. MNRAS 2023, 523, 453–473, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/2305.05696]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1371.
  32. Using dwarf satellite proper motions to determine their origin. MNRAS 2011, 416, 1401–1409, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1108.3697]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19138.x.
  33. Are Disks of Satellites Comprised of Tidal Dwarf Galaxies? Galaxies 2021, 9, 100, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2111.05306]. https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies9040100.
  34. Fast galaxy bars continue to challenge standard cosmology. MNRAS 2021, 508, 926–939, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2106.10304]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2553.
  35. Constraints on the dynamical evolution of the galaxy group M81. MNRAS 2017, 467, 273–289, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1701.01441]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw3381.
  36. Are the Magellanic Clouds on Their First Passage about the Milky Way? ApJ 2007, 668, 949–967, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/0703196]. https://doi.org/10.1086/521385.
  37. Simulations of the Magellanic Stream in a First Infall Scenario. ApJL 2010, 721, L97–L101, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1008.2210]. https://doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/721/2/L97.
  38. The infall of dwarf satellite galaxies are influenced by their host’s massive accretions. MNRAS 2021, 504, 5270–5286, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2104.13249]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab1283.
  39. The Magellanic Stream System. I. Ram-Pressure Tails and the Relics of the Collision Between the Magellanic Clouds. ApJ 2015, 813, 110, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1510.00096]. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/813/2/110.
  40. Towards a complete understanding of the Magellanic Stream Formation. MNRAS 2019, 486, 5907–5916, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1905.03801]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz1274.
  41. Vasiliev, E. Dear Magellanic Clouds, welcome back! arXiv e-prints 2023, p. arXiv:2306.04837, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2306.04837]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.04837.
  42. The Magellanic Stream at 20 kpc: A New Orbital History for the Magellanic Clouds. ApJL 2021, 921, L36, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2110.11355]. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac3338.
  43. The Structure of Cold Dark Matter Halos. ApJ 1996, 462, 563, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/9508025]. https://doi.org/10.1086/177173.
  44. The Average Star Formation Histories of Galaxies in Dark Matter Halos from z = 0-8. ApJ 2013, 770, 57, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1207.6105]. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57.
  45. The Structure of Halos: Implications for Group and Cluster Cosmology. ApJ 2009, 692, 217–228, [arXiv:astro-ph/0803.3624]. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/217.
  46. Profiles of dark haloes: evolution, scatter and environment. MNRAS 2001, 321, 559–575, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/9908159]. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04068.x.
  47. Cold dark matter haloes in the Planck era: evolution of structural parameters for Einasto and NFW profiles. MNRAS 2014, 441, 3359–3374, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1402.7073]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu742.
  48. MultiDark simulations: the story of dark matter halo concentrations and density profiles. MNRAS 2016, 457, 4340–4359, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1411.4001]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw248.
  49. Not all subhaloes are created equal: modelling the diversity of subhalo density profiles in TNG50. MNRAS 2024, 527, 11996–12015, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2311.13639]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad3894.
  50. Concentration, spin and shape of dark matter haloes: scatter and the dependence on mass and environment. MNRAS 2007, 378, 55–71, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/0608157]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11720.x.
  51. Chandrasekhar, S. Principles of Stellar Dynamics; The University of Chicago Press, 1942.
  52. An eclipsing-binary distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud accurate to two per cent. Nature 2013, 495, 76–79, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1303.2063]. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11878.
  53. Forty eclipsing binaries in the Small Magellanic Cloud: fundamental parameters and Cloud distance. MNRAS 2005, 357, 304–324, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/0411672]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08653.x.
  54. McConnachie, A.W. THE OBSERVED PROPERTIES OF DWARF GALAXIES IN AND AROUND THE LOCAL GROUP. The Astronomical Journal 2012, 144, 4. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/4.
  55. FIRST GAIA LOCAL GROUP DYNAMICS: MAGELLANIC CLOUDS PROPER MOTION AND ROTATION. The Astrophysical Journal 2016, 832, L23. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/832/2/l23.
  56. New Proper Motions of the Small Magellanic Cloud Using HST and Implications for Milky Way Mass. In Proceedings of the Rediscovering Our Galaxy; Chiappini, C.; Minchev, I.; Starkenburg, E.; Valentini, M., Eds., 2018, Vol. 334, pp. 394–395. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174392131701078X.
  57. Galactic Dynamics, 2 ed.; Princeton University Press, 2008.
  58. The VMC survey - XXXI: The spatially resolved star formation history of the main body of the Small Magellanic Cloud. MNRAS 2018, 478, 5017–5036, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1805.04516]. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty1279.
  59. Third-epoch Magellanic Cloud Proper Motions. II. The Large Magellanic Cloud Rotation Field in Three Dimensions. ApJ 2014, 781, 121, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/1305.4641]. https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/781/2/121.
  60. McGaugh, S.S. A Precise Milky Way Rotation Curve Model for an Accurate Galactocentric Distance. Research Notes of the AAS 2018, 2, 156. https://doi.org/10.3847/2515-5172/aadd4b.
  61. Local kinematics and the local standard of rest. MNRAS 2010, 403, 1829–1833, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/0912.3693]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16253.x.
  62. The Magellanic Stream: Circumnavigating the Galaxy. ARA&A 2016, 54, 363–400, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/1511.05853]. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023251.
  63. The Magellanic Corona as the key to the formation of the Magellanic Stream. Nature 2020, 585, 203–206, [arXiv:astro-ph.GA/2009.04368].
  64. Ensemble samplers with affine invariance. Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science 2010, 5, 65–80. https://doi.org/10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65.
  65. emcee: The MCMC Hammer. PASP 2013, 125, 306, [arXiv:astro-ph.IM/1202.3665]. https://doi.org/10.1086/670067.
  66. Charbonneau, P. Genetic Algorithms in Astronomy and Astrophysics. ApJS 1995, 101, 309. https://doi.org/10.1086/192242.
  67. Multi-method-modeling of interacting galaxies. I. A unique scenario for NGC 4449? A&A 2001, 370, 365–383, [arXiv:astro-ph/astro-ph/0104304]. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20010198.
  68. Cosmic Discordance: Planck and luminosity distance data exclude LCDM. arXiv e-prints 2020, p. arXiv:2003.04935, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/2003.04935].
  69. Investigating Cosmic Discordance. ApJL 2021, 908, L9, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/2003.04935]. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abe1c4.
  70. Melia, F. A Candid Assessment of Standard Cosmology. PASP 2022, 134, 121001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/aca51f.
  71. Di Valentino, E.D. Challenges of the Standard Cosmological Model. Universe 2022, 8, 399. https://doi.org/10.3390/universe8080399.
  72. di Valentino, E. Cosmological tensions: Hints for a new concordance model? In Proceedings of the The Sixteenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting. On Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Astrophysics, and Relativistic Field Theories, 2023, pp. 1770–1782. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789811269776_0138.
  73. Lopez-Corredoira, M. History and Problems of the Standard Model in Cosmology. arXiv e-prints 2023, p. arXiv:2307.10606, [arXiv:physics.hist-ph/2307.10606]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.10606.
  74. MCMC Marginalisation Bias and ΛΛ\Lambdaroman_ΛCDM tensions. arXiv e-prints 2023, p. arXiv:2307.16349, [arXiv:astro-ph.CO/2307.16349]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.16349.
Citations (5)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Generate Now

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Sign Up

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 2 tweets with 0 likes about this paper.

Sign Up for Free