Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-s6l46 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-01T23:49:38.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Overdensities in the Milky Way stellar halo probe the LMC to MW mass ratio

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2025

Simon Rozier*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the last two decades, some arguments have accumulated for a more important mass ratio of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) to the Milky Way (MW) than was previously thought, up to a value of 10% or more. This implies that the LMC has a measurable influence on the dynamics in the MW stellar halo, including both stellar densities and kinematics, as observed by Conroy et al. (2021) and Petersen and Peñarrubia (2021). While this merger has been previously reproduced using N-body simulations (see, e.g., Garavito-Camargo et al. 2019), I exploit here the results of a recent study (Rozier et al. 2022) which aimed at modelling the merger via linear response theory (LRT). More specifically, we integrated the linearized collisionless Boltzmann-Poisson system of partial differential equations using a methodology known as the matrix method. Our results display the same large scale behaviour as state-of-the-art simulations, with a dipolar over/underdense pattern related to the reflex motion of the MW, and an overdense wake trailing behind the LMC. Using LRT, I show that the response’s self-gravity can be neglected, implying a direct proportionality between the LMC to MW mass ratio and the amplitude of the relative density variations of the MW stellar halo. However, these overdensities may also depend on other model parameters, such as the structure of the MW potential (including a dark matter component), the initial stellar halo density, as well as its internal kinematics. I focus on the latter source of degeneracy, showing how the stellar halo’s velocity anisotropy impacts its response to the LMC. Interestingly enough, it appears that the density of the dipolar response is insensitive to the stellar halo’s initial velocity anisotropy, and can therefore represent an efficient probe of the LMC to MW mass ratio.

Information

Type
Contributed Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of International Astronomical Union

References

Baes, M., & van Hese, E. 2007, A & A, 471(2), 419432.Google Scholar
Behroozi, P. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Conroy, C. 2013, Astrophys. J., 770(1), 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist, L., et al. 2007, Astrophys. J., 668(2), 949967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008. Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy, C., Naidu, R. P., Garavito-Camargo, N., et al. 2021, Nature, 592(7855), 534536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erkal, D., Deason, A. J., Belokurov, V., et al. 2021, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc., 506(2), 26772684.Google Scholar
Garavito-Camargo, N., Besla, G., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 884(1), 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garavito-Camargo, N., Besla, G., Laporte, C. F. P., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 919(2), 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez, F. A., Besla, G., Carpintero, D. D., et al. 2015, Astrophys. J., 802(2), 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., Besla, G., Anderson, J., & Alcock, C. 2013, Astrophys. J., 764(2), 161.Google Scholar
Kalnajs, A. J. 1977, Astrophys. J., 212, 637644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koposov, S. E., Erkal, D., Li, T. S., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc., 521(4), 49364962.Google Scholar
Moster, B. P., Naab, T., & White, S. D. M. 2013, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc., 428(4), 31213138.Google Scholar
Peñarrubia, J., Gómez, F. A., Besla, G., Erkal, D., & Ma, Y.-Z. 2016, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc., 456(1), L54L58.Google Scholar
Petersen, M. S., & Peñarrubia, J. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 251255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozier, S., Famaey, B., Siebert, A., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 933(1), 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schommer, R. A., Suntzeff, N. B., Olszewski, E. W., & Harris, H. C. 1992, Astron. J., 103, 447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipp, N., Erkal, D., Drlica-Wagner, A., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 923(2), 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Marel, R. P., & Kallivayalil, N. 2014, Astrophys. J., 781(2), 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar