1: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}
2: %\usepackage{epsfig}
3: %\received{}
4: %\accepted{}
5: %\journalid{}{}
6: %\articleid{}{}
7:
8: \shorttitle{M31 Transverse Velocity and Local Group Mass}
9: \shortauthors{van der Marel \& Guhathakurta}
10:
11:
12: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
13: % User defined macros
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15:
16: \newcommand{\etal}{{et al.~}}
17: \newcommand{\lta}{\lesssim}
18: \newcommand{\gta}{\gtrsim}
19: \newcommand{\kms}{\>{\rm km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}}
20: \newcommand{\masyr}{\>{\rm mas}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}}
21: \newcommand{\uasyr}{\>\mu{\rm as}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}}
22: \newcommand{\Gyr}{\>{\rm Gyr}}
23: \newcommand{\kpc}{\>{\rm kpc}}
24: \newcommand{\Mpc}{\>{\rm Mpc}}
25: \newcommand{\Msun}{\>{\rm M_{\odot}}}
26:
27:
28: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
29: % Title and authors
30: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
31:
32: \begin{document}
33:
34: \title{M31 Transverse Velocity and Local Group Mass from Satellite Kinematics}
35:
36: \author{Roeland P.~van der Marel}
37: \affil{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive,
38: Baltimore, MD 21218}
39:
40: \author{Puragra Guhathakurta}
41: \affil{UCO/Lick Observatory, Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics,
42: University of California at Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street,
43: Santa Cruz, CA 95064}
44:
45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
46: % Abstract
47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50: We present several different statistical methods to determine the
51: transverse velocity vector of M31. The underlying assumptions are that
52: the M31 satellites on average follow the motion of M31 through space,
53: and that the galaxies in the outer parts of the Local Group on average
54: follow the motion of the Local Group barycenter through space. We
55: apply the methods to the line-of-sight velocities of 17 M31
56: satellites, to the proper motions of the 2 satellites M33 and IC 10,
57: and to the line-of-sight velocities of 5 galaxies near the Local Group
58: turn-around radius, respectively. This yields 4 independent but
59: mutually consistent determinations of the heliocentric M31 transverse
60: velocities in the West and North directions, with weighted averages
61: $\langle v_W \rangle = -78 \pm 41 \kms$ and $\langle v_N \rangle = -38
62: \pm 34 \kms$. The uncertainties correspond to proper motions of $\sim
63: 10 \uasyr$, which is unlikely to be within reach of direct
64: observational verification within the next decade. The Galactocentric
65: tangential velocity of M31 is $42 \kms$, with $1\sigma$ confidence
66: interval $V_{\rm tan} \leq 56 \kms$. The implied M31--Milky Way orbit
67: is bound if the total Local Group mass $M$ exceeds
68: $1.72^{+0.26}_{-0.25} \times 10^{12} \Msun$. If the orbit is indeed
69: bound, then the timing argument combined with the known age of the
70: Universe implies that $M = 5.58^{+0.85}_{-0.72} \times 10^{12}
71: \Msun$. This is on the high end of the allowed mass range suggested by
72: cosmologically motivated models for the individual structure and
73: dynamics of M31 and the Milky Way, respectively. It is therefore
74: possible that the timing mass is an overestimate of the true mass,
75: especially if one takes into account recent results from the Millennium
76: Simulation that show that there is also a theoretical uncertainty of
77: 41\% (Gaussian dispersion) in timing mass estimates. The M31
78: transverse velocity implies that M33 is in a tightly bound orbit
79: around M31. This may have led to some tidal deformation of M33. It
80: will be worthwhile to search for observational evidence of this.
81: \end{abstract}
82:
83: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
84: % Keywords
85: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
86:
87: \keywords{%
88: galaxies: kinematics and dynamics --- Local Group --- M31.}
89:
90: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
91: % Beginning of main text
92: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
93:
94: \section{Introduction}
95: \label{s:intro}
96:
97: The Local Group is dominated by two spiral galaxies, M31 and the Milky
98: Way. These galaxies have comparable properties, with M31 generally
99: believed to be slightly more massive (e.g., Klypin, Zhao \& Somerville
100: 2002). The next most luminous galaxies, M33 and the Large Magellanic
101: Cloud, are some 10 times fainter (e.g., van den Bergh 2000). The
102: dynamics and future of the Local Group are therefore determined
103: primarily by the relative velocity of M31 with respect to the Milky
104: Way. Unfortunately, this velocity is poorly known. The line-of-sight
105: velocity of M31 can be measured extremely accurately using the Doppler
106: shift of a large variety of tracers. However, even after a century of
107: careful attempts (starting with, e.g., Barnard 1917) still no useful
108: proper motion measurement exists to constrain the transverse
109: velocity. This limits our ability to answer several fundamental
110: questions. For example, do M31 and the Milky Way indeed form a bound
111: system, as is usually assumed (e.g., van den Bergh 1971)? What is the
112: exact mass of the Local Group implied by the so-called timing argument
113: (e.g., Kahn \& Woltjer 1959; Kroeker \& Carlberg 1991; Lynden-Bell
114: 1999)? What is the expected future evolution of the M31--Milky Way
115: system (e.g., Cox \& Loeb 2007)? And how has the structure of M33 been
116: influenced by possible interaction with M31 (e.g., Loeb
117: \etal 2005; hereafter L05)?
118:
119: In the present paper we show that it is possible to obtain a
120: statistical determination of the transverse velocity of M31 using the
121: observed velocities of its satellites. The analysis assumes that on
122: average the satellites follow the motion of M31 through space, with
123: some velocity dispersion. The ensemble of line-of-sight velocities,
124: and the individual proper motions available for selected galaxies,
125: then yield independent estimates of the M31 velocity. We also revisit
126: the method previously explored by Einasto \& Lynden-Bell (1982), which
127: is based on the assumption that the galaxies in the outer parts of the
128: Local Group follow the motion of the Local Group barycenter through
129: space. We apply the different methods to the currently available data
130: for the relevant Local Group galaxies, and we combine the results to
131: obtain an accurate determination of the M31 transverse velocity. We
132: then use this determination to address the aforementioned questions.
133:
134: The structure of the paper is as follows. Section~\ref{s:vtrans}
135: discusses the constraints on the M31 transverse velocity, based
136: on: the line-of-sight velocities of an ensemble of 17 M31 satellites
137: (Section~\ref{ss:los}); the recent high accuracy proper motion
138: determinations of the M31 satellites M33 and IC 10 by Brunthaler \etal
139: (2005, 2007) from VLBI observations of water masers
140: (Section~\ref{ss:pm}); and the line-of-sight velocities of an ensemble
141: of galaxies in the outer parts of the Local group
142: (Section~\ref{ss:outerlos}). The different constraints are compared
143: and combined in Section~\ref{ss:combine}. Section~\ref{s:allorbits}
144: discusses the implications of the inferred M31 velocity for the
145: relative orbit of M31 and the Milky Way (Section~\ref{ss:orbits}) and
146: for the relative orbit of M31 and M33 (Section~\ref{ss:triorbits}).
147: Section~\ref{s:disc} discusses how the results for the M31 transverse
148: velocity (Section~\ref{ss:vtan}), the total mass of the Local group as
149: implied by the timing argument (Section~\ref{ss:mass}), and the Local
150: Group turn-around radius (Section~\ref{ss:turn}) compare with
151: theoretical predictions and other observational
152: studies. Section~\ref{s:conc} presents the conclusions of our work.
153:
154: In the analysis below we use several coordinate systems. Observational
155: systems have their three principal axes aligned with the
156: line-of-sight, West, and North directions, respectively, for a given
157: position on the sky. We also use a Galactocentric coordinate system
158: centered on the Milky Way and a barycentric coordinate system centered
159: on the Local Group barycenter. The analysis requires transformations
160: between the positions and velocities in these systems. Many of the
161: necessary notations and derivations can be found in van der Marel
162: \etal (2002; which presents a study of the kinematics of the Large
163: Magellanic Cloud), and are given here without further
164: reference. Heliocentric velocities are generally denoted with a vector
165: ${\vec v}$, Galactocentric velocities with a vector ${\vec V}$, and
166: Local-Group barycentric velocities with a vector ${\vec
167: U}$. Velocities and proper motions in the observational systems are
168: generally heliocentric (i.e., not corrected for the reflex motion of
169: the Sun), unless stated otherwise.
170:
171: %%% TABLE 1 %%%
172:
173: \begin{deluxetable}{llrrrrl}
174: \tabletypesize{\small}
175: \tablecaption{M31 Satellite Galaxy Sample\label{t:satel}}
176: \tablehead{
177: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Type} & \colhead{$\rho$} & \colhead{$\Phi$} & \colhead{$v_{\rm los}$} \\
178: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{deg} & \colhead{deg} & \colhead{$\kms$} \\
179: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)}
180: }
181: \startdata
182: M31 & Sb I-II & 0.00 &$\ldots$ & -301 $\pm$ 1 \\
183: \hline
184: M32 & E2 & 0.40 & -179.10 & -205 $\pm$ 3 \\
185: NGC 205 & dSph & 0.60 & -46.61 & -244 $\pm$ 3 \\
186: And IX & dSph & 2.69 & 43.32 & -211 $\pm$ 3 \\
187: And I & dSph & 3.27 & 169.84 & -380 $\pm$ 2 \\
188: And III & dSph & 4.97 & -163.13 & -355 $\pm$ 10\\
189: And X & dSph & 5.62 & 48.96 & -164 $\pm$ 3 \\
190: % And XII & dSph & 6.96 & 171.94 & -556 $\pm$ 5 \\
191: NGC 185 & dSph/dE3 & 7.09 & -5.07 & -202 $\pm$ 7 \\
192: NGC 147 & dSph/dE5 & 7.43 & -12.29 & -193 $\pm$ 3 \\
193: And V & dSph & 8.03 & 35.31 & -403 $\pm$ 4 \\
194: And II & dSph & 10.31 & 136.82 & -188 $\pm$ 3 \\
195: % And XIV & dSph & 11.71 & 170.49 & -478 $\pm$ 5 \\
196: M33 & Sc II-III & 14.78 & 131.78 & -180 $\pm$ 1 \\
197: And VII/Cas & dSph & 16.17 & -47.93 & -307 $\pm$ 2 \\
198: IC 10 & dIrr & 18.37 & -9.11 & -344 $\pm$ 5 \\
199: And VI/Peg & dSph & 19.76 & -143.64 & -354 $\pm$ 3 \\
200: LGS 3/Pisces & dIrr/dSph & 19.89 & 165.44 & -286 $\pm$ 4 \\
201: Pegasus & dIrr/dSph & 31.01 & -143.37 & -182 $\pm$ 2 \\
202: IC 1613 & dIrr V & 39.44 & 171.30 & -232 $\pm$ 5 \\
203: \enddata
204: %
205: \tablecomments{\small The sample of M31 satellites used in the
206: modeling of Section~\ref{ss:los}. M31 itself is listed on the first
207: line for comparison. Column~(1) lists the galaxy name and column~(2)
208: its type. Columns~(3) and~(4) define the position on the sky: $\rho$
209: is the angular distance from M31 and $\Phi$ is the position angle with
210: respect to M31 measured from North over East. These angles were
211: calculated from the sky positions (RA,DEC) as in van der Marel
212: \etal (2002). The satellites in the table are sorted by their
213: value of $\rho$. Column~(5) lists the heliocentric line-of-sight
214: velocity and its error. Velocities and sky positions (RA,DEC) for
215: most satellites were obtained from the compilation of Evans \etal
216: (2000), except for the satellites And~IX and~X which had not yet been
217: discovered in 2000. For those we used the velocity measurements and
218: (RA,DEC) given by Chapman \etal (2005) and Kalirai
219: \etal (2007), respectively.}
220: %
221: \end{deluxetable}
222:
223: %%%%%%%%%%
224:
225: \section{The M31 Transverse Velocity}
226: \label{s:vtrans}
227:
228: \subsection{Constraints from Line-of-Sight Velocities of M31 Satellites}
229: \label{ss:los}
230:
231: The velocity vector of an M31 satellite galaxy can be written as the
232: sum of the M31 velocity vector, and a peculiar velocity
233: %
234: \begin{equation}
235: \label{vvec}
236: {\vec v}_{\rm sat} = {\vec v}_{\rm M31} + {\vec v}_{\rm pec} .
237: \end{equation}
238: %
239: We assume that any one-dimensional component of ${\vec v}_{\rm pec}$
240: is a random Gaussian deviate with dispersion $\sigma$. More formally,
241: this is true if the velocity distribution of the satellites is both
242: isotropic and isothermal. The first assumption finds some support from
243: studies of galaxy satellite systems (e.g., Kochanek 1996) and clusters
244: of galaxies (e.g., van der Marel \etal 2000). The second assumption
245: is reasonable in view of the fact that the gravitational potentials of
246: dark halos are approximately logarithmic. Either way, in the present
247: analysis there is only a very weak dependence on the accuracy of these
248: assumptions (by contrast to studies of the mass distribution of M31;
249: e.g., Evans \etal 2000).
250:
251: The velocity vector of M31 can be described by quantities $v_{\rm
252: sys}$, $v_t$ and $\Theta_t$, where $v_{\rm sys}$ is the line-of-sight
253: velocity, $v_t$ is the transverse velocity, and $\Theta_t$ is the
254: position angle of the transverse motion on the sky. The velocities in
255: the directions of West and North are
256: %
257: \begin{equation}
258: \label{vWNdef}
259: v_W \equiv v_t \cos (\Theta_t + 90^{\circ}) , \qquad
260: v_N \equiv v_t \sin (\Theta_t + 90^{\circ}) .
261: \end{equation}
262: %
263: The position of a satellite on the sky can be described by the angles
264: $(\rho,\Phi)$, where $\rho$ is the angular distance from M31 and
265: $\Phi$ is the position angle with respect to M31 measured from North
266: over East (as defined in van der Marel \& Cioni 2001; van der Marel
267: \etal 2002). Because satellites are not located on the same position on
268: the sky as M31, the vector ${\vec v}_{\rm M31}$ has a different
269: decomposition in line-of-sight and transverse components than it does
270: for M31. More specifically, the line-of-sight velocity of a satellite
271: is
272: %
273: \begin{equation}
274: \label{vsatlos}
275: v_{\rm sat,los} =
276: v_{\rm sys} \cos \rho +
277: v_t \sin \rho \cos (\Phi -\Theta_t) +
278: v_{\rm pec,los} .
279: \end{equation}
280: %
281: The factor $\cos \rho$ in the first term indicates that only a
282: fraction of $v_{\rm sys}$ is seen along the line-of-sight. The second
283: term is an apparent solid body rotation component in the $v_{\rm
284: sat,los}$ velocity field on the sky, with amplitude $v_t \sin \rho$
285: and kinematic major axis along position angle $\Theta_t$. The last
286: term merely adds a scatter $\sigma$ on top of the velocity field
287: defined by the first two terms.
288:
289: It follows from equation~(\ref{vsatlos}) that the transverse velocity
290: of M31 affects the line-of-sight velocities of its
291: satellites. Therefore, a study of the line-of-sight velocities of the
292: satellites can constrain the M31 transverse velocity. To this end we
293: compiled the sample in Table~\ref{t:satel}, which consists of
294: M31 satellites with known velocities. The sample is based on that used
295: by Evans \etal (2000), but with addition of the more recently
296: discovered Andromeda dwarf satellites And~IX and~X. The satellites And
297: XI and XIII (Martin \etal 2006, who also reports the finding of an
298: unusually distant globular cluster) and And XV and XVI (Ibata \etal
299: 2007) are not included because no line-of-sight velocity measurements
300: have yet been reported for them. We fitted equation~(\ref{vsatlos}) to
301: these data by determining the values of $(v_{\rm sys},v_W,v_N)$ that
302: minimize the scatter in $v_{\rm pec,los}$. The resulting scatter is
303: the dispersion $\sigma$ of the satellite population. After the
304: best-fitting model was identified, we calculated error bars on the
305: fitted parameters using Monte-Carlo simulations. Many different pseudo
306: data sets were created with the same satellites at the same positions,
307: but with velocities drawn from the best-fit model, with $v_{\rm
308: pec,los}$ drawn as a random Gaussian deviate with dispersion $\sigma$.
309: The pseudo data sets were then analyzed similarly as the real data
310: set. The dispersions in the inferred model parameters are a measure of
311: their formal 1-$\sigma$ error bars.
312:
313: The modeling procedure yields $v_{\rm sys} = -270 \pm 19 \kms$, $v_W =
314: -136 \pm 148 \kms$, $v_N = -5 \pm 75 \kms$, and $\sigma = 76 \pm 13
315: \kms$ (see also Table~\ref{t:Andvel} below). The data and
316: representative predictions of the best-fitting model are shown in
317: Figure~\ref{f:vlos}. Color-coding indicates the distance from M31. The
318: inferred transverse velocity corresponds to sinusoidal variations that
319: are less than the observed scatter in the data. No sinusoidal
320: variation with angle is discernible in the data by eye; indeed, the
321: case of zero transverse velocity (amplitude zero for the sinusoidal
322: variations) is also statistically consistent with the data. However,
323: this is not a null result. Large transverse velocities of hundreds of
324: $\kms$ would have induced large sinusoidal variations that are not
325: seen in the data. Such transverse velocities are therefore ruled out.
326: We note that we could also have kept $v_{\rm sys}$ fixed in the fit at
327: the observed value of $v_{\rm sys} = -301 \pm 1 \kms$ (Courteau \& van
328: den Bergh 1999). We verified that such a fit yields verify similar
329: results, namely $v_W = -123 \pm 159 \kms$ and $v_N = -33 \pm 79 \kms$,
330: which is well within the uncertainties quoted above.
331:
332: \begin{figure}[t]
333: \epsfxsize=0.8\hsize
334: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig1.eps}}
335: \figcaption{Comparison of heliocentric line-of-sight velocity data of M31
336: satellites and the predictions of equation~(\ref{vsatlos}), for the
337: best-fit values of the heliocentric M31 transverse velocity $(v_W,v_N)
338: = (-136,-5) \kms$. The curves show the predictions as function of
339: position angle $\Phi$, for angular distances from M31 of $\rho =
340: 3^{\circ}$ (red), $\rho = 9^{\circ}$ (cyan), $\rho = 15^{\circ}$
341: (green), $\rho = 29^{\circ}$ (black). Data points are from
342: Table~\ref{t:satel}. They are color coded based on bins in angular
343: distance $\rho$, from 0--6$^\circ$ (red), 6--12$^\circ$ (cyan),
344: 12--18$^\circ$ (green), and 18--40$^\circ$ (black). Predictions with
345: zero transverse velocity (amplitude zero for the sinusoidal
346: variations) are also statistically consistent with the data. However,
347: a large transverse velocity for M31 of hundreds of $\kms$ (corresponding
348: to sinusoidal variations of much larger amplitude than show here) are
349: ruled out.\label{f:vlos}}
350: \end{figure}
351:
352: Our analysis does not assume that the satellites are necessarily bound
353: to M31. For M33, orbit calculations do suggest that it probably is
354: bound (see figure 3 of Loeb \etal 2005), but this has not been
355: established with confidence for most of the other satellites. We
356: decided not to include the recently discovered dSph galaxies And XII
357: and And XIV in our sample. They lie at similar position angles, $\Phi
358: = 171.94^{\circ}$ and $170.49^{\circ}$, respectively, and at distances
359: $\rho = 6.96^{\circ}$ and $11.71^{\circ}$, that are not atypical for
360: the rest of our sample. However, their velocities of $-556 \pm 5$ and
361: $-478 \pm 5 \kms$, respectively, are $3.3\sigma$ and $2.3\sigma$ away
362: from the observed velocity of M31. It has been suggested that they
363: form a system that is falling into M31 for the first time (Chapman
364: \etal 2007; Majewski \etal 2007), which would not make them useful
365: additions to our analysis. As a test we did repeat our analysis with
366: these galaxies included in the sample. This yielded $v_{\rm sys} =
367: -296 \pm 27 \kms$, $v_W = -85 \pm 200 \kms$, $v_N = 41 \pm
368: 108 \kms$, and $\sigma = 106 \pm 18 \kms$. This is consistent
369: with the result for our main sample to within the uncertainties. This
370: illustrates that the results are fairly robust against the inclusion
371: or removal of individual galaxies. By contrast, modeling of the parent
372: galaxy {\it mass} based on satellites can be quite sensitive to
373: assumptions about the bound state of individual galaxies (e.g.,
374: Kochanek 1996).
375:
376: \subsection{Constraints from Proper Motions of M31 Satellites}
377: \label{ss:pm}
378:
379: Water masers can be observed at high spatial resolution with VLBI
380: techniques. This makes them a valuable tool for proper motion studies
381: of Local Group galaxies. Brunthaler \etal (2005, 2007) recently
382: determined the proper motions for two galaxies in the M31 group,
383: namely M33 and IC 10. Unfortunately, no water masers have yet been
384: found in M31 and, at present detection limits, may be none should be
385: expected (Brunthaler \etal 2006). So the direct application of
386: this technique to M31 may not be possible in the foreseeable
387: future. However, the measurements for M33 and IC 10 can be used to
388: constrain the transverse velocity of M31
389: indirectly. Equation~(\ref{vvec}) implies that the unknown velocity
390: vector of M31 can be estimated from the known velocity vector of a
391: satellite as ${\vec v}_{M31} = {\vec v}_{\rm sat} - {\vec v}_{\rm
392: pec}$. Since the peculiar velocity is unknown, it acts as a Gaussian
393: uncertainty of size $\sigma$ in each velocity component.
394:
395: In analogy with equation~(\ref{vsatlos}), one can write for the
396: transverse velocity components of the satellite
397: %
398: \begin{eqnarray}
399: \label{vsatprop}
400: v_{\rm sat,2} & = &
401: - v_{\rm sys} \sin \rho +
402: v_t \cos \rho \cos (\Phi -\Theta_t) + v_{\rm pec,2} , \nonumber \\
403: v_{\rm sat,3} & = &
404: - v_t \sin (\Phi -\Theta_t) + v_{\rm pec,3} .
405: \end{eqnarray}
406: %
407: Here the unit vectors 2 and 3 on the plane of the sky are related to
408: the directions of West and North, all at the position of the
409: satellite, according to a rotation
410: %
411: \begin{equation}
412: \label{propmone}
413: \left ( \begin{array}{c} v_{{\rm sat}, W} \\ v_{{\rm sat}, N}
414: \end{array} \right )
415: =
416: \left ( \begin{array}{cc}
417: - \sin \Gamma & - \cos \Gamma \\
418: \cos \Gamma & - \sin \Gamma \\
419: \end{array} \right )
420: \>
421: \left ( \begin{array}{c} v_{{\rm sat},2} \\ v_{{\rm sat},3}
422: \end{array} \right ) ,
423: \end{equation}
424: %
425: where the rotation angle $\Gamma$ is determined by
426: %
427: \begin{eqnarray}
428: \label{Gammadef}
429: \cos \Gamma & = & [\sin \delta \cos \delta_0 \cos (\alpha-\alpha_0) -
430: \cos \delta \sin \delta_0] \>
431: / \sin \rho , \nonumber \\
432: \sin \Gamma & = & [\cos \delta_0 \sin (\alpha-\alpha_0)] \> / \sin \rho .
433: \end{eqnarray}
434: %
435: Here $(\alpha,\delta)$ are the RA and DEC of the satellite, and
436: $(\alpha_0,\delta_0)$ are the RA and DEC of M31 (i.e., the position
437: with $\rho = 0$).
438:
439: Given values of $(v_{\rm sat,los}, v_{{\rm sat},W}, v_{{\rm sat},N})$,
440: the equations~(\ref{vWNdef})--(\ref{Gammadef}) uniquely constrain the
441: three unknown components $(v_{\rm sys}, v_W, v_N)$ of the M31 velocity
442: vector. We solve these equations for each of the two satellites M33
443: and IC 10. We take $v_{\rm sat,los}$ from Table~\ref{t:satel}. To
444: obtain $v_{\rm sat,W}$ and $v_{\rm sat,N}$ we write each velocity
445: component as $v = (0.0047404 D \mu_{\rm obs}) - \delta v_{\rm rot}$,
446: where $\mu_{\rm obs}$ is the observed proper motion in $\uasyr$, $D$
447: is the satellite distance in kpc, and $\delta v_{\rm rot}$ is a
448: correction for the internal rotation of the galaxy under study. We
449: take $D = 794 \pm 23 \kpc$ for M33 (McConnachie \etal 2004) and $D =
450: 660 \pm 65 \kpc$ for IC 10 (Evans \etal 2000). The other quantities
451: follow from Brunthaler et al.~(2005, 2007): $(\mu_{\rm obs,W},\mu_{\rm
452: obs,N}) = (-4.7 \pm 3.2, -14.1 \pm 6.4) \uasyr$ for M33; $(\mu_{\rm
453: obs,W},\mu_{\rm obs,N}) = (-6.0 \pm 5.0, 23.0 \pm 5.0) \uasyr$ for
454: IC10; $(\delta v_{\rm rot,W}, \delta v_{\rm rot,N}) = (70 \pm 23
455: , -81 \pm 23) \kms$ for M33; and $(\delta v_{\rm rot,W}, \delta
456: v_{\rm rot,N}) = (-25 \pm 19 , 9 \pm 19) \kms$ for IC 10. We
457: do not include the Brunthaler \etal corrections for the reflex motion
458: of the Sun, since we deal with that issue separately in
459: Section~\ref{ss:orbits}. We add Gaussian random deviates in our
460: calculations to reflect the uncertainties. We take each component of
461: ${\vec v}_{\rm pec}$ to be a Gaussian random deviate with dispersion
462: $\sigma = 76 \kms$, as determined in Section~\ref{ss:los}. For each
463: combination of $(v_{\rm sat,los}, v_{\rm sat,W}, v_{\rm sat,N})$ we
464: solve the equations to obtain $(v_{\rm sys}, v_W, v_N)$ and we repeat
465: this in Monte-Carlo fashion. We adopt the average and dispersion of
466: the results as our final estimate for the M31 velocity vector and its
467: error. Using M33, we obtain the following estimates for M31: $v_{\rm
468: sys} = -183 \pm 76 \kms$, $v_W = -48 \pm 80 \kms$, $v_N = 71
469: \pm 84 \kms$. Using IC 10, we obtain the following estimates for
470: M31: $v_{\rm sys} = -346 \pm 76 \kms$, $v_W = -16 \pm 80
471: \kms$, $v_N = -47 \pm 81 \kms$ (see also Table~\ref{t:Andvel}
472: below).
473:
474: %%% TABLE 2 %%%
475:
476: \begin{deluxetable*}{llrrlrr}
477: \tabletypesize{\small}
478: \tablecaption{Outer Local Group Galaxy Sample\label{t:outer}}
479: \tablehead{
480: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{Type} & \colhead{RA} & \colhead{DEC} & \colhead{$v_{\rm los}$} & \colhead{$D$} & \colhead{$D_{\rm bary}$} \\
481: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{deg} & \colhead{deg} & \colhead{$\kms$} & \colhead{kpc} & \colhead{kpc} \\
482: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} &
483: \colhead{(5)} & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} \\
484: }
485: \startdata
486: WLM & dIrr IV-V & 0.49234 & -15.46093 & -122 $\pm$ 2 & 945 $\pm$ 40 & 802 \\
487: Aquarius/DD0210 & dIrr/dSph & 311.71585 & -12.84792 & -141 $\pm$ 2 & 950 $\pm$ 50 & 940 \\
488: Leo A & dIrr V & 149.86025 & 30.74639 & 24 $\pm$ \ldots & 800 $\pm$ 40 & 953 \\
489: Tucana & dSph & 340.45667 & -64.41944 & 130 $\pm$ \ldots & 870 $\pm$ 60 & 1068 \\
490: Sag DIG & dIrr V & 292.49573 & -17.67815 & -79 $\pm$ 1 & 1060 $\pm$ 100 & 1152 \\
491: \enddata
492: %
493: \tablecomments{\small The sample of outer Local Group galaxies
494: used in the modeling of Section~\ref{ss:outerlos}. Column~(1) lists the
495: galaxy name and column~(2) its type. Columns~(3) and~(4) give the
496: position on the sky. Column~(5) lists the heliocentric line-of-sight
497: velocity and, where available, its error. Velocities and sky positions
498: (RA,DEC) were obtained from the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED).
499: Column~(6) lists the heliocentric distance and its error, from Grebel
500: \etal (2003). Column~(7) lists the Local Group barycentric distance
501: $D_{\rm bary}$, calculated assuming the M31 distance listed in
502: Section~\ref{ss:orbits} and a mass fraction $f_{\rm M31} = 0.53$. The
503: galaxies in the table are sorted by their value of $D_{\rm bary}$.}
504: %
505: \end{deluxetable*}
506:
507: %%%%%%%%%%
508:
509: \subsection{Constraints from Line-of-Sight Velocities of Outer Local Group
510: Galaxies}
511: \label{ss:outerlos}
512:
513: The Local Group contains not only the virialized subgroups of galaxies
514: surrounding the Milky Way and M31, but also a number of unattached
515: galaxies that populate the outer regions of the Local Group. On
516: average, these galaxies are expected to follow the motion of the Local
517: Group barycenter through space. Their heliocentric line-of-sight
518: velocity vectors, averaged in a three-dimensional sense, therefore
519: statistically equal the reflex motion of the Sun with respect to
520: the Local Group barycenter. Since the velocity of the barycenter is
521: itself determined by the relative velocity of M31 with respect to the
522: Milky Way, this yields a determination of the latter. Variations of
523: this method have been applied in the past by, e.g., Yahil, Tammann,
524: \& Sandage (1977), Lynden-Bell \& Lin (1977) and Einasto \&
525: Lynden-Bell (1982). It is now worthwhile to revisit this method, since
526: available information on the membership and distances of Local Group
527: galaxies has evolved significantly in the past decades.
528:
529: We adopt a Cartesian coordinate system $(X,Y,Z)$, with the origin at
530: the Galactic Center, the $Z$-axis pointing towards the Galactic North
531: Pole, the $X$-axis pointing in the direction from the sun to the
532: Galactic Center, and the $Y$-axis pointing in the direction of the
533: sun's Galactic Rotation. For the set of outer Local Group galaxies
534: $i=1,\ldots,N$ we calculate the unit vector ${\vec r}_i$ in the
535: direction of each galaxy. If the velocity vector of the Sun with
536: respect to the Local Group barycenter is ${\vec U}_{\odot}$, then one
537: has
538: %
539: \begin{equation}
540: \label{matrix}
541: \sum_i (v_{{\rm los},i} + [{\vec U}_{\odot} \cdot {\vec r}_i]) {\vec r}_i
542: = 0 ,
543: \end{equation}
544: %
545: where $v_{{\rm los},i}$ is the heliocentric line-of-sight velocity for
546: each galaxy. This can be written as a $3 \times 3$ matrix equation for
547: the components of the vector ${\vec U}_{\odot}$. The best-fit values
548: and their formal errors are easily obtained using standard techniques
549: (Einasto \& Lynden-Bell 1982). Once this solution is obtained one can
550: calculate the velocity of the Milky Way with respect to the Local
551: Group Barycenter, ${\vec U}_{\rm MW} = {\vec U}_{\odot} - {\vec
552: V}_{\odot}$. Here ${\vec V}_{\odot}$ is the velocity vector of the Sun
553: in the Galactocentric rest frame. For the circular velocity of the
554: Local Standard of Rest (LSR) we use the standard IAU value $V_0 = 220
555: \kms$ (Kerr \& Lynden-Bell 1986), to which we assign an uncertainty
556: $10 \kms$ (none of our results depend sensitively on this
557: quantity). For the residual velocity of the Sun with respect to the
558: LSR we adopt the values of Dehnen \& Binney (1998). If we assume that
559: all of the mass of the Local Group resides in the Milky Way and
560: M31, then the barycenter is simply the mass-weighted average of their
561: position vectors. This implies in the Galactocentric rest frame that
562: the velocity of M31 is ${\vec V}_{\rm M31} = - {\vec U}_{\rm MW} /
563: f_{\rm M31}$, where $f_{\rm M31} \equiv M_{\rm M31} / (M_{\rm M31} +
564: M_{\rm MW})$. The heliocentric velocity of M31 is therefore ${\vec
565: v}_{\rm M31} = {\vec V}_{\rm M31} - {\vec V}_{\odot}$. After
566: substitution of the previous equations this yields
567: %
568: \begin{equation}
569: \label{outersol}
570: {\vec v}_{\rm M31} = - {\vec U}_{\odot}/ f_{\rm M31} +
571: {\vec V}_{\odot} [ (1/f_{\rm M31}) - 1] .
572: \end{equation}
573: %
574: This heliocentric vector can be decomposed into components along the
575: line-of-sight and in the West and North directions following the
576: methodology of van der Marel \etal (2002).
577:
578: Application of equation~(\ref{outersol}) requires that we assume a
579: value for $f_{\rm M31}$. Einasto \& Lynden-Bell (1982) used the
580: Tully-Fisher relation to constrain this quantity, and built this
581: constraint directly into their matrix solution for ${\vec
582: U}_{\odot}$. However, the mass ratio of M31 and the Milky Way isn't
583: actually all that well known observationally, and different arguments
584: for estimating it have yielded different results. Our aim here is to
585: constrain ${\vec v}_{\rm M31}$ from observational data, while
586: imprinting a minimum amount of theoretical prejudice into the
587: result. So we simply assume that $f_{\rm M31}$ is homogeneously
588: distributed between $0.39$ and $0.67$ (i.e., $M_{\rm M31} / M_{\rm MW}
589: = 0.8$--$2.0$). This encompasses most of the values that have been
590: quoted in the literature (see discussion in Section~\ref{ss:mass}). We
591: then solve equation~(\ref{outersol}) in Monte-Carlo fashion, while
592: simultaneously adding in the random errors in ${\vec U}_{\odot}$ and
593: ${\vec V}_{\odot}$. This yields both the best fit result for ${\vec
594: v}_{\rm M31}$ and its statistical uncertainties.
595:
596: We base our analysis on the sample of Local Group dwarf galaxies
597: (there are no giant galaxies in the outer parts of the Local Group)
598: compiled by Grebel, Gallagher, \& Harbeck (2003). From their table~1
599: we removed all galaxies listed as being (potentially) part of the
600: Milky Way or M31 subgroups. We obtained the heliocentric line-of-sight
601: velocities of the galaxies from the NASA Extragalactic Database
602: (NED). We removed the Cetus dwarf from the sample, since it has no
603: line-of-sight velocity available. We restricted our primary sample
604: to galaxies with a Local Group barycentric distance less than $\sim
605: 1.2 \Mpc$. The resulting sample consists of 5 galaxies, which are
606: listed in Table~\ref{t:outer}. With this sample the analysis yields
607: for M31: $v_{\rm sys} = -405 \pm 114 \kms$, $v_W = -126 \pm 63
608: \kms$, $v_N = -89 \pm 50 \kms$ (see also Table~\ref{t:Andvel} below).
609: The fit yields an estimate $\sigma = 22 \kms$ for the
610: one-dimensional dispersion of the galaxies around the space motion of
611: the Local-Group barycenter. The small value of this dispersion is due
612: to the fact that the sample galaxies reside at an average Local Group
613: barycentric distance of $0.98 \Mpc$, which is consistent with the
614: Local Group turn-around radius (e.g., Karachentsev
615: \etal 2002), where the velocity with respect to the Local Group
616: barycenter is zero by definition.
617:
618: When comparing the analyses in Section~\ref{ss:los} and the present
619: section, there is an important difference in the expected galaxy
620: velocities. The velocities of satellites around M31 are virialized, so
621: the expectation value of a satellite velocity with respect to M31 is
622: zero, independent of where the satellite is located on the sky. By
623: contrast, the motions of the outer Local-Group galaxies around the
624: Local Group barycenter are not virialized. Therefore, the expectation
625: value of a galaxy velocity with respect to the Local Group barycenter
626: is zero only if the galaxy is near the turn-around radius. If this is
627: not the case, then equation~(\ref{matrix}) is valid only if the
628: galaxies are distributed homogeneously around the Local Group. In
629: reality, the distribution is both non-homogeneous and the number of
630: galaxies is small. Therefore, addition to the sample of galaxies
631: beyond the turn-around radius is expected to add both bias and
632: shot-noise to the estimate of the M31 velocity. Moreover, galaxies
633: significantly outside the turn-around radius do not necessarily need
634: to follow the Local Group barycenter motion.
635:
636: The sample in Table~\ref{t:outer} consists of a rather small number of
637: galaxies. So despite the aforementioned disadvantages, we did study
638: the effect of adding more Local Group galaxies at larger barycentric
639: distances. In particular, we tried to add the only other 6 Local Group
640: galaxies within $2 \Mpc$ (namely: NGC 3109, Antlia, Sextans A and B,
641: IC 5152 and KKR 25; Grebel \etal 2003) that are not believed to be
642: associated with any other nearby structures. These reside at
643: barycentric distances of 1.6--$1.9
644: \Mpc$. Analysis of the combined sample of 11 galaxies yields for M31:
645: $v_{\rm sys} = -608 \pm 154 \kms$, $v_W = -82 \pm 138 \kms$,
646: $v_N = -46 \pm 82 \kms$. The fit yields an estimate $\sigma =
647: 50 \kms$ for the one-dimensional dispersion of the galaxies around
648: the space motion of the Local-Group barycenter. The large deviation of
649: $v_{\rm sys}$ from the observed value as well as the increased
650: $\sigma$ and formal errors support our assertion that adding these
651: distant galaxies decreases the quality of the results. Nonetheless,
652: the results for $v_W$ and $v_N$ are consistent with those
653: inferred from the smaller sample, within the errors. So we conclude
654: that the results for the M31 transverse motion are quite robust, and
655: not very sensitive to the composition of the sample. This is further
656: supported by the fact that our results are consistent within the
657: errors with the preferred solutions obtained by Einasto \& Lynden-Bell
658: (1982), despite their use of a sample that is only partially
659: overlapping with ours.
660:
661: %%% TABLE 3 %%%
662:
663: \begin{deluxetable}{llll}
664: \tabletypesize{\small}
665: \tablecaption{M31 Heliocentric Velocity Estimates\label{t:Andvel}}
666: \tablehead{
667: \colhead{Method} & \colhead{$v_{\rm sys}$} & \colhead{$v_W$} & \colhead{$v_N$} \\
668: \colhead{} & \colhead{$\kms$} & \colhead{$\kms$} & \colhead{$\kms$} \\
669: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)}
670: }
671: \startdata
672: M31 Satels. & -270 $\pm$ 19 & -136 $\pm$ 148 & -5 $\pm$ 75 \\
673: M33 PM & -183 $\pm$ 76 & -48 $\pm$ 80 & 71 $\pm$ 84 \\
674: IC 10 PM & -346 $\pm$ 76 & -16 $\pm$ 80 & -47 $\pm$ 81 \\
675: Outer LG Gals. & -405 $\pm$ 114 & -126 $\pm$ 63 & -89 $\pm$ 50 \\
676: \hline
677: Weighted Av. & -273 $\pm$ 18 & -78 $\pm$ 41 & -38 $\pm$ 34
678: \enddata
679: %
680: \tablecomments{\small Estimates of the heliocentric velocity
681: of M31 estimated using different methods, as indicated in column~(1).
682: The method based on the M31 satellite ensemble line-of-sight
683: velocities is described in Section~\ref{ss:los}, and that based on the
684: observed proper motions (PMs) of M33 and IC 10 is described in
685: Section~\ref{ss:pm}, and that based on the line-of-sight velocities of
686: the satellites in outer regions of the Local Group is described in
687: Section~\ref{ss:outerlos}. Column~(2) lists the estimated M31
688: systemtic line-of-sight velocities. Columns~(3) and~(4) lists the
689: estimated M31 transverse velocities in the West and North directions,
690: respectively. The bottom line of the table lists the weighted average
691: of the results from the different methods.}
692: %
693: \end{deluxetable}
694:
695: %%%%%%%%%%
696:
697: \subsection{Comparison and Combination of Constraints}
698: \label{ss:combine}
699:
700: The $v_W$ and $v_N$ for M31 inferred from the different methods and
701: listed in Table~\ref{t:Andvel} are shown in Figure~\ref{f:vwvn} as
702: colored data points with error bars. The weighted averages of all four
703: of the independent estimates are $\langle v_W \rangle = -78 \pm 41
704: \kms$ and $\langle v_N \rangle = -38 \pm 34 \kms$. This is shown in
705: the figure as a black data point with error bars.
706:
707: The $\chi^2$ that measures the residuals between the individual
708: measurements in Table~\ref{t:Andvel} and the weighted averages is
709: $\chi^2 = 8.1$ for $N = 9$ degrees of freedom (12 measurements minus 3
710: parameters). Therefore, the results for the $v_W$ and $v_N$ from the
711: different methods are consistent within the errors. Among other
712: things, this implies that there is no evidence that the dispersion of
713: the peculiar velocities of M31 satellites in the transverse direction,
714: which enters into the analysis of Section~\ref{ss:pm}, is larger than
715: the value $\sigma = 76 \kms$ derived from line-of-sight velocities in
716: Section~\ref{ss:los}. This is consistent with the assumption that was
717: made about the isotropy of the peculiar velocities.
718:
719: The inferred weighted average of the three independent systemic
720: velocity estimates is $\langle v_{\rm sys} \rangle = -273 \pm 18
721: \kms$. This differs at the $1.6\sigma$ level from the observed M31
722: velocity $v_{\rm sys} = -301 \pm 1 \kms$ (Courteau \& van den Bergh
723: 1999), but the agreement in an absolute sense is better than the
724: formal uncertainties in $(\langle v_W \rangle, \langle v_N
725: \rangle)$. So this comparison provides no reason to mistrust our
726: assumptions that the M31 satellites (Sections~\ref{ss:los}
727: and~\ref{ss:pm}) and the outer Local Group galaxies
728: (Section~\ref{ss:outerlos}) move on average through space with the
729: same velocity as M31 and the Local Group barycenter, respectively (see
730: Lynden-Bell 1999 for an earlier discussion of this).
731:
732: The analyses in the previous sections make assumptions about the
733: velocity distributions of the satellites, but not about their spatial
734: distributions. These spatial distributions are known to be
735: inhomogeneous. In the case of the M31 subgroup, there are more
736: satellites on the near side of M31 (i.e., between M31 and the Milky
737: Way) than on the far side (e.g., McConnachie \& Irwin 2006). Moreover,
738: recent studies have suggested that (some of) the satellites are
739: concentrated near a plane surrounding M31 (e.g., Koch \& Grebel
740: 2006). These facts by themselves do not affect our analysis at all, as
741: long as the velocity distributions remain isotropic. However, the
742: analysis {\it would} be affected if the satellite ensemble possessed a
743: mean rotation. This is possible in some of the scenarios that have
744: been suggested for a possible disk-like distribution of satellites
745: (but not necessarily the favored scenarios; see, e.g., Metz, Kroupa,
746: \& Jerjen 2007). In the method of Section~\ref{ss:los} we fit an
747: apparent solid-body rotation field (eq.~[\ref{vsatlos}]) to the
748: observed satellite velocities. Any intrinsic rotation would therefore
749: bias the inferred transverse velocity. However, if this had been the
750: case then we might have expected the M31 transverse velocity results
751: of this method to be inconsistent with the results from the other
752: methods that we have used, and in particular the method of
753: Section~\ref{ss:outerlos} based on outer Local Group galaxies. The
754: fact that the results from the different methods are actually
755: statistically consistent therefore suggests that our results are not
756: affected by potential rotation of the M31 satellite system.
757:
758: In the comparisons of the different estimates listed in
759: Table~\ref{t:Andvel} it should be noted that they are not completely
760: independent, because the line-of-sight velocities of M33 and IC10
761: enter not only in the analysis of Section~\ref{ss:pm}, but also in
762: that of Section~\ref{ss:los}. However, this is not a very important
763: issue. We verified that if M33 and IC10 are removed from the
764: line-of-sight velocity analysis in Section~\ref{ss:los}, then the
765: changes in the results are well within the uncertainties.
766:
767: \begin{figure}[t]
768: \epsfxsize=0.8\hsize
769: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig2.eps}}
770: \figcaption{Estimates of the M31 heliocentric transverse velocity
771: in the West and North directions. Data points with error bars are from
772: Table~\ref{t:Andvel}, based on the M31 satellite ensemble
773: line-of-sight velocities (blue), the proper motion of M33 (green), the
774: proper motion of IC 10 (red), the line-of-sight velocities of outer
775: Local group satellites (magenta), or the weighted average of these
776: results (black). The starred symbol indicates the transverse velocity
777: that corresponds to a radial orbit for M31 with respect to the Milky
778: Way. The cyan rectangle approximates the region that is ruled out in
779: all of the theoretical models explored by Loeb \etal (2005), because
780: the resulting relative orbit of M31 and M33 would have produced more
781: disruption of the M33 disk than is observed. The small dots are the
782: 18\% of 30,000 samplings from the error ellipse belonging to the black
783: data point that are consistent with the theoretical
784: constraint.\label{f:vwvn}}
785: \end{figure}
786:
787: \section{Orbits}
788: \label{s:allorbits}
789:
790: \subsection{M31--Milky Way Orbit}
791: \label{ss:orbits}
792:
793: To calculate the velocity of M31 in the Galactocentric rest frame we
794: adopt the same Cartesian coordinate system $(X,Y,Z)$ as in
795: Section~\ref{ss:outerlos}. We adopt a distance $D = 770 \pm 40 \kpc$ for
796: M31 (Holland 1998; Joshi \etal 2003; Walker 2003; Brown \etal 2004;
797: McConnachie \etal 2005; Ribas \etal 2005). The position of M31 is then
798: ${\vec r} = (-379.2,612.7,-283.1) \kpc$. To calculate the reflex motion
799: of the Sun at the position of M31 we use the same solar velocity as in
800: Section~\ref{ss:outerlos} and we use the standard IAU value $R_0 = 8.5
801: \kpc$ for the distance of the Sun from the Galactic Center (Kerr \&
802: Lynden-Bell 1986), to which we assign an uncertainty of $0.5 \kpc$
803: (none of our results depend sensitively on this quantity). The
804: velocity of the Sun then projects to $(v_{\rm sys}, v_W, v_N)_{\odot}
805: = (172, 128, 71) \kms$ at the position of M31. Since one
806: observes the reflex of this, these values must be {\it added} to the
807: observed M31 velocities to obtain its velocity in the Galactocentric
808: rest frame. The velocity vector corresponding to the observed velocity
809: component $v_{\rm sys}$ given in Table~\ref{t:satel} and the inferred
810: $(\langle v_W \rangle, \langle v_N \rangle)$ given in
811: Table~\ref{t:Andvel} is then ${\vec V}_{\rm obs} = (97 \pm 35 ,
812: -67 \pm 26 , 80 \pm 32) \kms$. The errors (which are
813: correlated between the different components) were obtained by
814: propagation of the errors in the individual position and velocity
815: quantities (including those for the Sun) using a Monte-Carlo scheme.
816:
817: \begin{figure*}[t]
818: \epsfxsize=0.8\hsize
819: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig3.eps}}
820: \figcaption{Probability histograms of: M31
821: Galactocentric tangential velocity $V_{\rm tan}$; minimum total mass
822: $M_{\rm bind,min}$ of M31 and the Milky Way if the galaxies are bound;
823: and assuming a bound orbit and the timing argument, the M31-Milky Way
824: orbital pericenter distance $r_{\rm peri}$, orbital eccentricity $e$,
825: orbital semi-major axis length $a$, orbital period $T$, current
826: eccentric anomaly $\eta$, total mass $M_{\rm timing}$, and implied
827: turnaround radius $r_0$ for test-particles on radial orbits around the
828: M31-Milky Way system. The probability distributions were obtain using
829: Monte-Carlo simulations as described in the text. The vertical scales
830: are arbitrary. The blue curves take into account all observational
831: uncertainties in the distances and velocities of both M31 and the Sun
832: in the Galactocentric rest frame, as well as the observational
833: uncertainties in the age of the Universe. The red curves also enforce
834: the theoretical exclusion zone of Loeb \etal 2005 (cyan region in
835: Figure~\ref{f:vwvn}), within which more tidal deformation of M33 would
836: have been expected than is observed.\label{f:hist}}
837: \end{figure*}
838:
839: If the transverse velocity of M31 in the Galactocentric rest frame,
840: $V_{\rm tan}$, equals zero, then M31 moves straight towards the Milky
841: Way on a purely radial (head-on collision) orbit. This orbit has
842: $(v_W,v_N)_{\rm rad} = (-127, -71) \kms$ (this is approximately
843: the reflex of the velocity of the Sun quoted above, because the lines
844: from the Sun to M31 and from the Galactic Center to M31 are almost
845: parallel). The radial orbit is indicated as a starred symbol in
846: Figure~\ref{f:vwvn}. The velocity ${\vec V}_{\rm obs}$ calculated in
847: the previous paragraph has tangential and radial components $V_{\rm
848: tan,obs} = 59 \kms$ and $V_{\rm rad,obs} = -130 \kms$. The total
849: velocity is $|{\vec V}_{\rm obs}| = 142 \kms$.
850:
851: The value $V_{\rm rad,obs}$ is an unbiased estimator of the true
852: radial velocity $V_{\rm rad}$. The associated uncertainty can be
853: calculated in straightforward fashion using the previously described
854: Monte-Carlo scheme. This yields $V_{\rm rad} = -130 \pm 8 \kms$.
855: The uncertainty is due mostly to the uncertainty in our knowledge of
856: the circular velocity of the LSR in the Galactic plane. The values of
857: $V_{\rm tan,obs}$ and $|{\vec V}_{\rm obs}|$ are more difficult to
858: interpret, because they are not unbiased estimators of the true
859: velocities $V_{\rm tan}$ and $|{\vec V}|$. This is because the area
860: coverage of $V_{\rm tan}$ values in the $(v_W,v_N)$ plane scales as $2
861: \pi V_{\rm tan} d V_{\rm tan}$, which produces a bias in the sense
862: that any measurement error in $(v_W,v_N)$ tends to yield overestimates
863: of $V_{\rm tan}$ and $|{\vec V}|$. To quantify and correct these
864: biases we used Bayes' theorem, which yields the identity
865: %
866: \begin{equation}
867: P(V_{\rm tan} | V_{\rm tan, obs}) \propto
868: P(V_{\rm tan}) P (V_{\rm tan, obs} | V_{\rm tan})
869: \end{equation}
870: %
871: We are interested in the quantity on the left-hand side, which is the
872: probability distribution of $V_{\rm tan}$, given our measurement. The
873: quantity $P(V_{\rm tan})$ on the right-hand side is the Bayesian prior
874: probability of $V_{\rm tan}$, which we assume to be flat (i.e.,
875: homogeneous). The quantity $P (V_{\rm tan, obs} | V_{\rm tan})$ is the
876: probability of measuring a value $V_{\rm tan, obs}$ if the actual
877: value is $V_{\rm tan}$. This latter distribution is easily calculated
878: using Monte-Carlo drawings, because the measurement uncertainties are
879: known. Once the distributions $P (V_{\rm tan, obs} | V_{\rm tan})$
880: have been pre-calculated for all $V_{\rm tan}$, it is straightforward
881: to obtain a Monte-Carlo sampling of the probability distribution
882: $P(V_{\rm tan} | V_{\rm tan, obs})$. To this end one draws a random
883: deviate $V_{\rm tan}$, and then accepts this value with probability $P
884: (V_{\rm tan, obs} | V_{\rm tan})$. The top left panel of
885: Figure~\ref{f:hist} shows the probability distribution $P(V_{\rm tan}
886: | V_{\rm tan, obs})$ thus obtained. The median $V_{\rm tan} = 42
887: \kms$. The fact that this is smaller than $V_{\rm tan, obs} = 59 \kms$
888: quantifies the aforementioned bias. The $1\sigma$ confidence interval
889: is $V_{\rm tan} \leq 56 \kms$. So the radial orbit is consistent
890: with the data at this confidence level. These results are discussed in
891: the context of previous model predictions in
892: Section~\ref{ss:vtan}. When combined with the value for $V_{\rm rad}$,
893: the $1\sigma$ confidence interval around the median for the total
894: velocity is $|{\vec V}| = 138^{+14}_{-11} \kms$.
895:
896: To get insight into the relative orbit of M31 and the Milky Way we
897: assume that they can be approximated as point masses of mass $M_{\rm
898: M31}$ and $M_{\rm MW}$, respectively. In the center-of-mass frame,
899: their orbit then has energy $E = {1\over2} \mu |{\vec V}|^2 - G \mu M
900: / \vert {\vec r} \vert$ and angular momentum $L = \mu \vert {\vec r}
901: \times {\vec V} \vert$, where the total mass is $M = M_{\rm M31} +
902: M_{\rm MW}$ and the reduced mass is $\mu = M_{\rm M31} M_{\rm MW} /
903: M$. The galaxies are bound to each other ($E<0$) if $M \geq M_{\rm
904: bind, min} = \vert {\vec r} \vert \> |{\vec V}|^2 / 2 G$. The orbit
905: of the separation vector ${\vec r}$ is then a Kepler
906: ellipse with eccentricity $e^2 = 1 + (2 E L^2 / G^2 M^2 \mu^3)$ and
907: semi-major axis length $a = L^2 / [G M \mu^2 (1-e^2)]$. The pericenter
908: separation is $r_{\rm peri} = a / (1-e)$. The period is $T = 2 \pi
909: (a^3/GM)^{1/2}$. The orbit can be parameterized using the eccentric
910: anomaly $\eta$ as (e.g., Kibble 1985; Binney \& Tremaine 1987)
911: %
912: \begin{eqnarray}
913: \label{Keplerpos}
914: r & = & a(1-e \cos\eta) , \nonumber \\
915: t & = & (a^3/GM)^{1/2} (\eta-e\sin\eta) .
916: \end{eqnarray}
917: %
918: In this parameterization $\eta = 0$ corresponds to the pericenter
919: passage at $t=0$, while $\eta = 2\pi$ corresponds to the next
920: pericenter passage at $t=T$. The radial and tangential velocities can
921: be similarly parameterized as (e.g., Kochanek 1996)
922: %
923: \begin{eqnarray}
924: \label{Keplervel}
925: V_{\rm rad} & = & (GM/a)^{1/2} (e \sin\eta) / (1 - e \cos\eta) , \nonumber \\
926: V_{\rm tan} & = & (GM/a)^{1/2} (1 - e^2)^{1/2} / (1 - e \cos\eta) .
927: \end{eqnarray}
928:
929: It is generally assumed that the Local Group is a bound system that,
930: due to its overdensity, decoupled from the Hubble expansion at fairly
931: high redshift. Since then the orbital evolution of M31 and the Milky
932: Way has been governed by Newtonian dynamics. Given this scenario and
933: the orbital description given by equation~(\ref{Keplerpos}), the Big
934: Bang must have corresponded to a previous pericenter passage, which we
935: can take to be $t=0$. The current time $t$ then corresponds to the age
936: of the Universe, which has been tightly constrained using data from
937: the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe to be $t =
938: 13.73^{+0.16}_{-0.15} \Gyr$ (Spergel \etal 2007). With measurements of
939: the current Galactocentric distance $r$ and velocities $V_{\rm rad}$
940: and $V_{\rm tan}$, the equations~(\ref{Keplerpos})
941: and~(\ref{Keplervel}) can be solved for the quantities $M$, $a$, $e$
942: and $\eta$. The quantity $\eta$ must be in the interval $[\pi,2\pi]$
943: (so that M31 and the Milky Way are falling towards each other for the
944: first time), since unplausibly high masses $M$ are otherwise required.
945:
946: This methodology for modeling the Local Group is commonly called the
947: ``timing-argument''. It has been widely applied and discussed in the
948: literature (e.g., Kahn \& Woltjer 1959; Lynden-Bell 1981, 1999;
949: Einasto \& Lynden-Bell 1982; Raychaudhury \& Lynden-Bell 1989; Kroeker
950: \& Carlberg 1991; Kochanek 1996; Loeb \etal 2005), mostly to obtain joint
951: estimates for the age of the Universe and the mass of the Local Group,
952: often assuming a purely radial orbit. We can now do a more accurate
953: analysis, both because we have an observational estimate of $V_{\rm
954: tan}$, and because the age of the Universe can be assumed to be
955: well-known from independent data. We have used this methodology on our
956: results. Monte-Carlo error propagation was performed as described
957: above, to obtain full probability distributions of $M$, $a$, $e$,
958: $\eta$, $T$, and $r_{\rm peri}$. The results are shown as histograms
959: in Figure~\ref{f:hist}. The inferred $1\sigma$ confidence intervals
960: around the median are: $M = 5.58^{+0.85}_{-0.72} \times 10^{12}
961: \Msun$; $a = 561^{+29}_{-26} \kpc$; $\eta = 4.301^{+0.047}_{-0.045}$
962: radians; $r_{\rm peri} = 23 \kpc$, with $1\sigma$ confidence interval
963: $r_{\rm peri} \leq 40.9 \kpc$; $T = 16.70^{+0.27}_{-0.26} \Gyr$; and
964: $e = 0.959$, with $1\sigma$ confidence interval $(1-e) \leq
965: 0.072$. The implications of this result for $M$ are discussed in
966: Section~\ref{ss:mass}. The uncertainties in the listed quantities are
967: due primarily to the uncertainties in $V_{\rm tan}$ and the M31
968: distance $D$. The uncertainties in these quantities contribute more or
969: less equally to the uncertainties in $M$, $a$, $T$, and $\eta$. The
970: uncertainties in the distance have little effect on $e$ and $r_{\rm
971: peri}$. All quantities vary monotonically with $V_{\rm tan}$ and
972: $D$. Larger values of $V_{\rm tan}$ yield larger values of $M$, $a$,
973: $\eta$, $T$, and $r_{\rm peri}$, and smaller values of $e$. Larger
974: values of $D$ yield larger values of $M$, $a$, $e$, $T$, and $r_{\rm
975: peri}$, and smaller values of $\eta$. Figure~\ref{f:hist} also shows
976: the probability distribution of $M_{\rm bind, min}$, the minimum mass
977: required for a bound orbit. The inferred $1\sigma$ confidence
978: intervals around its median is $M_{\rm bind, min} =
979: 1.72^{+0.26}_{-0.25} \times 10^{12} \Msun$.
980:
981: The anticipated collision between M31 and the Milky Way will happen at
982: the next orbital pericenter, which in the Kepler model is at $T-t
983: \approx 3.0 \pm 0.3 \Gyr$ from now. The orbital pericenter distance
984: is much smaller than the sizes of the galaxies' dark halos. If the
985: galaxies are assumed to have a logarithmic potential that reproduces
986: the observed rotation curve amplitudes, then their radial extents
987: $r_t$ are $235 (M_{\rm M31}/3.4 \times 10^{12} \Msun) \kpc$ and $207
988: (M_{\rm MW}/2.3 \times 10^{12} \Msun) \kpc$, respectively (Loeb \etal
989: 2005). The dark halos will intersect once the orbital separation
990: becomes smaller than the sums of these sizes. This will have two
991: consequences. First, the orbits will deviate from Kepler ellipses in
992: the sense that the orbit will have less curvature and larger $r_{\rm
993: peri}$ than indicated by the previously derived Kepler orbit. Second,
994: there will be dynamical friction, which will tend to increase the
995: curvature and will tend to decrease $r_{\rm peri}$. More complicated
996: calculations are necessary to properly calculate the orbit once the
997: dark halos of the galaxies start to overlap and to study the
998: properties of the resulting merger. Such calculations were recently
999: presented by Cox \& Loeb (2007). However, they adopted an orbit with
1000: $V_{\rm tan} = 132 \kms$, $r_{\rm peri} = 450 \kpc$, and $e =
1001: 0.494$. Comparison to the top panel of Figure~\ref{f:hist} shows that
1002: this orbit is not consistent with our measurement of the M31
1003: transverse velocity.
1004:
1005: \subsection{M31--M33 Orbit}
1006: \label{ss:triorbits}
1007:
1008: Loeb \etal (2005; hereafter L05) recently derived a theoretical
1009: constraint on the transverse motion of M31 from the fact that M33 is
1010: relatively undisturbed. This appears to rule out orbits where M33 had
1011: a previous close interaction with M31. The exact shape of the region
1012: in $(v_W,v_N)$ space thus ruled out (being defined by L05 as: more
1013: than 20\% of the M33 stars would have been stripped) has a complex
1014: shape and depends somewhat on the modeling assumptions, but it can be
1015: approximated by the solid cyan rectangle in Figure~\ref{f:vwvn}. This
1016: is an approximation to figure~2c of L05 (which quantified the
1017: transverse motion using Galactocentric rest-frame velocities
1018: $V_{\alpha {\rm cos} \delta} = -v_W - 128 \kms$ and $V_{\delta} =
1019: v_N + 71 \kms$). In some of their models (see their figures~2a,b)
1020: even a somewhat larger region is ruled out.
1021:
1022: The overall shape of the excluded region in $(v_W,v_N)$ space can be
1023: understood with fairly simple calculations and arguments. In doing so,
1024: we ignore the observational uncertainties in the quantities of
1025: interest. This is sufficient for the scope of the present discussion,
1026: but should be included for more quantitative understanding of the
1027: M31-M33 orbit. Based on the data from Table~\ref{t:satel} and the M33
1028: and M31 distances from Sections~\ref{ss:pm} and~\ref{ss:orbits},
1029: respectively, the distance between M33 and M31 is $203 \kpc$. The
1030: center of the excluded region in Figure~\ref{f:vwvn} is at $(v_W,v_N)
1031: \approx (-68,-11) \kms$. This defines the three-dimensional velocity
1032: vector of M31, while for M33 that vector is known from Brunthaler
1033: \etal (2005). The radial and tangential velocity components of the
1034: separation vector are then $V_{\rm rad} = -71 \kms$ and $V_{\rm tan} =
1035: 126 \kms$. The Kepler orbit of the separation vector can be calculated
1036: similarly as in Section~\ref{ss:orbits}. In doing so, we assume that
1037: $M_{\rm M31} = 3.0 \times 10^{12}$, which is based on $M = 5.58 \times
1038: 10^{12} \Msun$ (Section~\ref{ss:orbits}) and $f_{\rm M31} \approx
1039: 0.54$ (compare Section~\ref{ss:outerlos}). We assume that the
1040: M33-to-M31 mass ratio is equal to the value $\sim (118/250)^4$
1041: suggested by the Tully-Fisher relation and the galaxy's circular
1042: velocities (Corbelli \& Schneider 1997; Klypin \etal 2002). The orbit
1043: then has $a = 120 \kpc$, $r_{\rm peri} = 27 \kpc$, $T = 2.2 \Gyr$, and
1044: $e = 0.77$. The value of $a$ is close to the minimum that this
1045: quantity can attain (i.e., maximum binding energy) as a function of
1046: $(v_W,v_N)$, which is $a_{\rm min} = 113 \kpc$. Given the value of
1047: $a$, M33 moves inside of the M31 dark halo for most of its orbit. Our
1048: assumption that all of the M31 mass resides at its center therefore
1049: overestimates the curvature of the orbit. The listed pericenter
1050: distance should thus be interpreted as a lower bound on the actual
1051: value. More detailed calculations, as in L05, are required to get a
1052: proper estimate of this quantity.
1053:
1054: As one moves from $(v_W,v_N) \approx (-68,-11) \kms$ along the
1055: diagonal that runs from the bottom left to the top right in
1056: Figure~\ref{f:vwvn}, the Kepler orbit value of $r_{\rm peri}$ doesn't
1057: change much. However, $a$ increases, which means that the orbits
1058: become more eccentric and less bound (and ultimately unbound). The
1059: galaxies therefore spend less time in close vicinity of each other, and
1060: the relative velocity at pericenter increases. By contrast, as one
1061: moves from $(v_W,v_N) \approx (-68,-11) \kms$ along the diagonal that
1062: runs from the top left to the bottom right in Figure~\ref{f:vwvn}, the
1063: Kepler orbit value of $e$ doesn't change much. But again, $a$
1064: increases, which means that the orbits have larger pericenter
1065: separations and become less bound (and ultimately unbound). The energy
1066: dissipated during an encounter scales as $dE \propto 1/(r^4 V^2)$ in
1067: the impulsive tidal approximation (e.g., Binney \& Tremaine 1987,
1068: eq.~[7-55]), where $r$ is the impact parameter. Therefore, as one
1069: moves away along either diagonal in Figure~\ref{f:vwvn}, the structure
1070: of M33 will be less perturbed by the encounter. The excluded region in
1071: Figure~\ref{f:vwvn} can therefore be understood to lowest order as the
1072: region where the orbital integral over $dE$ exceeds some threshold,
1073: with $r$ and $V$ calculated on the basis of the Kepler orbit.
1074:
1075: Interestingly, the observationally implied transverse velocity of M31
1076: from Table~\ref{t:Andvel} falls right in the region for which
1077: considerable tidal deformation of M33 would have been expected. This
1078: M31 velocity yields a Kepler orbit for the M31--M33 separation vector
1079: with $a = 127 \kpc$, $r_{\rm peri} = 30 \kpc$, $T = 2.4 \Gyr$, and $e
1080: = 0.76$. However, the uncertainties in the observationally
1081: implied velocities cannot be ignored. Upon performing Monte-Carlo
1082: sampling we find that as much as 18\% of samplings from the error
1083: ellipse fall outside the cyan rectangle in Figure~\ref{f:vwvn}, and
1084: therefore do not violate the M33 tidal stripping argument. These 18\%
1085: are shown as small black dots for a total sample of 30,000
1086: drawings. The black dots can be viewed as a visual representation of
1087: the probability distribution of M31's transverse velocity obtained by
1088: taking into account not only the observational constraints derived
1089: here, but also the theoretical M33 stripping argument of L05. Since
1090: most of the dots fall close to the cyan rectangle, it is likely that
1091: there has been some tidal deformation of M33 by M31 (although not
1092: sufficient to pass L05's threshold for being considered
1093: excluded). This suggests that it will be worthwhile to perform deep
1094: searches for tidal tails and structures in the outer regions of M33,
1095: similar to those that have already been performed for M31 (e.g.,
1096: Ferguson \etal 2002).
1097:
1098: Our results for the relative M31--M33 orbit involve a small amount of
1099: circular reasoning, since we have assumed a priori that the residual
1100: space motion of M33 with respect M31 has the same dispersion ($\sigma
1101: = 76 \kms$ per coordinate, as derived from line-of-sight velocities in
1102: Section~\ref{ss:los}) as do the other M31 satellites. To avoid this
1103: circular reasoning one could ignore the result labeled ``M33 PM'' in
1104: Table~\ref{t:Andvel} (green cross in Figure~\ref{f:vwvn}). The
1105: weighted average of the remaining M31 transverse motion estimates then
1106: becomes $\langle v_W \rangle = -89 \pm 47 \kms$ and $\langle v_N
1107: \rangle = -60 \pm 37 \kms$. This differs by only $24 \kms$ from what
1108: we have used so far (last line of Table~\ref{t:Andvel}), and this
1109: difference is well within the uncertainties. This modified result
1110: still falls well inside the region excluded by L05. Therefore, our
1111: conclusions about the M31--M33 orbit are not influenced by the fact
1112: that we have used the M33 space velocity as one of the estimators of
1113: the M31 space velocity.
1114:
1115: L05 only considered models with $M_{\rm M31} = 2.6$--$3.4 \times
1116: 10^{12} \Msun$. As is discussed in Section~\ref{ss:mass} below, it is
1117: possible that the M31 mass is actually lower than this. For example,
1118: Klypin \etal (2002) advocate $M_{\rm M31} = 1.6 \times 10^{12}
1119: \Msun$. It follows both from the simple arguments of
1120: Section~\ref{ss:triorbits} and from the detailed calculations of L05
1121: (their figure~2) that the amount of past tidal deformation of M33 is
1122: smaller for smaller values of $M_{\rm M31}$. This would reduce the
1123: area of the excluded rectangular region in Figure~\ref{f:vwvn}, and
1124: would reduce the concern that our observational estimate of the M31
1125: transverse velocity falls in the region of parameter space that was
1126: disfavored by L05. Also, the models of L05 (and hence the cyan region
1127: in Figure~\ref{f:vwvn}) do not account explicitly for the
1128: observational uncertainties in the assumed distances of M31 and
1129: M33. If the actual distances differ at the 1 or 2$\sigma$ level from
1130: the canonical values, then this could affect the location of the
1131: excluded region in transverse-velocity space.
1132:
1133: It is straightforward to include the theoretical constraint of L05
1134: into the M31-Milky Way timing argument calculations of
1135: Section~\ref{ss:orbits}. To address this, we applied the same
1136: Monte-Carlo scheme as in that section, but now with rejection of all
1137: Monte-Carlo drawn velocities with $(v_W,v_N)$ combinations in the
1138: region excluded by L05. This yields the probability histograms shown
1139: in red in Figure~\ref{f:hist}. The distributions of $V_{\rm tan}$, $e$
1140: and $r_{\rm peri}$ become rather non-Gaussian, as can be easily
1141: understood from the distribution of points in
1142: Figure~\ref{f:vwvn}. However, the other distributions remain close to
1143: Gaussian, and are not very different from those obtained without using
1144: the LO5 M33 stripping argument. The same is true for the inferred
1145: $1\sigma$ confidence intervals around the median values. For example,
1146: for the Local Group mass we obtain $M = 5.50^{+1.14}_{-0.76} \times
1147: 10^{12} \Msun$, which is similar to the result of
1148: Section~\ref{ss:orbits}.
1149:
1150: \section{Discussion}
1151: \label{s:disc}
1152:
1153: \subsection{M31 Tangential Velocity}
1154: \label{ss:vtan}
1155:
1156: Many previous studies of the M31--Milky Way system have assumed that
1157: their orbit can be approximated to be radial ($V_{\rm tan} \approx
1158: 0$). This simplifies analyses based on the timing argument and, in the
1159: absence of a reliable $V_{\rm tan}$ measurement, was a reasonable
1160: guess based on simple cosmological arguments. In the absence of mutual
1161: gravitational interactions, peculiar velocities with respect to the
1162: Hubble flow decrease with time as $(1+z)$. In the M31--Milky Way
1163: system there is mutual gravitational attraction along the galaxy
1164: separation vector. This changes the radial velocity $V_{\rm rad}$ from
1165: positive (receding) at high $z$ to negative (approaching) at the
1166: present time, as quantified by the timing argument. However, the
1167: angular momentum is conserved in a two-body system without external
1168: perturbations. Therefore, a significant present-day tangential motion
1169: in such as system implies an unrealistically high peculiar velocity at
1170: high redshift.
1171:
1172: The situation is more complicated when the possibility of angular
1173: momentum exchange is taken into account. Tidal torques can lead to
1174: exchange between the spin angular momentum of the galaxies and
1175: their orbital angular momentum. This process may have contributed both
1176: to the observed spins of M31 and the Milky-Way, and to the tangential
1177: velocity component in their orbital motion (Gott \& Thuan 1978; Dunn
1178: \& Laflamme 1993). More importantly, tidal torques exerted by the
1179: galaxies outside of the Local Group also induce a tangential velocity
1180: component in the M31--Milky Way system (Raychaudhury \& Lynden-Bell
1181: 1989). A useful approach to study this effect, and more generally, the
1182: orbits of all the galaxies in the nearby Universe, is based on the
1183: principle of least action (Peebles 1989). This assumes that nearby
1184: galaxies arrived at their present configuration through gravitational
1185: interactions from a nearly homogeneous high-redshift state with
1186: negligible peculiar velocities. Allowed solutions are those that
1187: minimize the relevant Hamiltonian action integral. This method can be
1188: used to fit observed galaxy velocities starting from their observed
1189: positions (Peebles \etal 1989; Peebles 1994), to fit observed galaxy
1190: distances starting from their observed velocities (Shaya, Peebles, \&
1191: Tully 1995; Schmoldt \& Saha 1998), or to fit observed galaxy
1192: velocities and distances simultaneously (Peebles \etal 2001, hereafter
1193: P01; Pasetto \& Chiosi 2007). The general prediction from the
1194: theoretical work that includes tidal torques is that M31 tangential
1195: velocities of $V_{\rm tan} \lta 200 \kms$ are expected in plausible
1196: models.\footnote{The mass $M = M_{\rm M31} + M_{\rm MW}$ calculated
1197: with the timing argument is a monotonically increasing function of
1198: $V_{\rm tan}$. So if one pre-assumes an upper limit to $M$, then one
1199: also obtains an upper limit to $V_{\rm tan}$. L05 used this approach
1200: to obtain $V_{\rm tan} \lta 120 \kms$ based on the assumption that $M
1201: \leq 5.6 \times 10^{12} \Msun$. However, no physical motivation was
1202: provided for this assumed mass limit. Larger values of $V_{\rm tan}$
1203: are not inconsistent with the timing argument, but they do require
1204: higher masses.}
1205:
1206: Figure~6 of P01 shows the M31 transverse velocity vectors predicted in
1207: 30 minimum-action solutions for the nearby Universe. The reason that
1208: there are multiple possible solutions is due to the absence of
1209: observational knowledge of most galaxy proper motions. P01
1210: characterized the M31 velocity using supergalactic angular coordinates
1211: in the Galactocentric rest frame. These are related to the
1212: heliocentric transverse velocity $v_t$ and the position angle
1213: $\Theta_t$ of the transverse motion on the sky, defined as in
1214: equation~(\ref{vWNdef}), according to
1215: %
1216: \begin{eqnarray}
1217: \label{vSGLdef}
1218: v_{\rm SGL} & = & - v_t \cos (\Theta_t + 34.60^{\circ})
1219: - 131 \kms, \nonumber \qquad \\
1220: v_{\rm SGB} & = & \>\>\> v_t \sin (\Theta_t + 34.60^{\circ})
1221: - 64 \kms .
1222: \end{eqnarray}
1223: %
1224: Our weighted average velocity $(\langle v_W \rangle, \langle v_N
1225: \rangle)$ given in Table~\ref{t:Andvel} corresponds to
1226: $(v_{\rm SGL},v_{\rm SGB}) = (-55 , -21) \kms$. The $68.3$\%
1227: confidence ellipse around this measurement encloses 8 of the 30 viable
1228: solutions presented by P01. Our measurement is therefore fully
1229: consistent with their theoretical work. The action method is based on
1230: the assumptions that mass follows light and that the galaxy peculiar
1231: velocities are due to their mutual gravitational interactions. Our M31
1232: transverse motion determination therefore provides no reason to doubt
1233: these assumptions (although cosmological N-body simulations suggest
1234: that these assumptions are at best only approximately satisfied;
1235: Martinez-Vaquero, Yepes, \& Hoffman 2007). The mass $M_{\rm M31} +
1236: M_{\rm MW}$ assumed in the P01 models is $5.16
1237: \times 10^{12} \Msun$, which is consistent with the range
1238: calculated in Figure~\ref{f:hist} based on the timing argument. The
1239: mass was not varied independently in P01, but is within the factor
1240: $\sim 2$ range of masses for which the action method yields plausible
1241: solutions (Peebles \etal 1994). Pasetto \& Chiosi (2007) obtained a
1242: best-fit solution from their action modeling that corresponds to a
1243: heliocentric velocity $(v_W,v_N) = (-142, -41) \kms$. This value
1244: is near the edge of our $68.3$\% confidence ellipse, and is therefore
1245: also consistent with our measurement. The mass $M_{\rm M31} + M_{\rm
1246: MW}$ assumed in their models is $5.36 \times 10^{12} \Msun$, which is
1247: also within the range calculated in Figure~\ref{f:hist} based on the
1248: timing argument.
1249:
1250: In summary, our measurement of the transverse velocity of M31 is
1251: consistent with the most recent theoretical models. Moreover, the fact
1252: that 73\% of P01's action-method solutions do {\it not} fall within
1253: our $68.3$\% confidence ellipse suggests that our measurement has
1254: sufficient accuracy to provide meaningful constraints on the allowed
1255: solution space of the Local Group orbits and its history.
1256:
1257: \subsection{Local Group Mass}
1258: \label{ss:mass}
1259:
1260: In Section~\ref{ss:orbits} we calculated that the minimum $M = M_{\rm
1261: M31} + M_{\rm MW}$ required for a bound orbit is $M_{\rm bind, min} =
1262: 1.72^{+0.26}_{-0.25} \times 10^{12} \Msun$ and that for a bound orbit
1263: the timing argument implies that $M = 5.58^{+0.85}_{-0.72}
1264: \times 10^{12} \Msun$. These results are based on point mass dynamics,
1265: where the point masses are proxys for entire the Milky Way subgroup of
1266: galaxies and the entire M31 subgroup of galaxies (i.e., the parent
1267: galaxy plus its satellites), respectively. Only a negligible fraction
1268: of the light in the Local Group comes from galaxies that are not part
1269: of either of these subgroups (see Table~\ref{t:outer}). Therefore, the
1270: mass $M$ is a proxy for the total mass of the Local Group.
1271:
1272: It is of interest to compare our mass estimates to those derived using
1273: independent arguments. Kochanek (1996) modeled the mass distribution
1274: of the Milky Way using equilibrium models for the velocities of Milky
1275: Way satellites, with the circular velocity of the disk and the
1276: escape velocity of stars in the solar neighborhood as additional
1277: constraints. This yielded a fairly well constrained mass of $(0.5 \pm
1278: 0.1) \times 10^{12} \Msun$ inside of $50
1279: \kpc$. However, the total Milky Way mass depends on the extent
1280: of the dark halo, which is poorly constrained by any data. Kochanek's
1281: solutions therefore allowed total masses anywhere from $\sim$ 1--5
1282: $\times 10^{12} \Msun$ (see his figure~7). Wilkinson \& Evans (1999)
1283: obtained a similarly large range from their models, $M =
1284: 1.9^{+3.6}_{-1.7} \times 10^{12} \Msun$, for the same reason. Both of
1285: these studies used rather arbitrarily parameterized density
1286: profiles. Klypin, Zhao \& Somerville (2002; hereafter K02) improved
1287: this situation by restricting the discussion to models with
1288: $\Lambda$CDM cosmologically motivated density profiles and
1289: concentrations. This yielded a much more tightly constrained total
1290: mass. Their favored solution (their model A1) has a total virial mass
1291: of $1.0 \times 10^{12} \Msun$. The highest-mass model that is still
1292: consistent with the observational and theoretical constraints (their
1293: model A4; see also Besla \etal 2007) has a total virial mass of $2.0
1294: \times 10^{12} \Msun$.
1295:
1296: Evans \& Wilkinson (2000) and Evans \etal (2000) modeled the mass
1297: distribution of M31 using equilibrium models for the velocities of M31
1298: satellites and halo tracers. This yielded $M = 0.8^{+1.6}_{-0.5}
1299: \times 10^{12} \Msun$, suggesting that M31 be less massive
1300: than the Milky Way. However, as for the Milky Way modeling, the
1301: allowed mass range was large due to uncertainties in the dark halo
1302: extent. Again, K02 improved this situation by imposing theoretical
1303: constraints from $\Lambda$CDM modeling. This yielded a favored model
1304: (their model B1) with a total virial mass of $1.6 \times 10^{12}
1305: \Msun$. The ratio $M_{\rm M31} / M_{\rm MW} = 1.6$ for the favored
1306: models in the K02 study (this implies $f_{\rm M31} = 0.62$, as defined
1307: in Section~\ref{ss:outerlos}). This is similar to the value implied by
1308: the ratio of the galaxy's circular velocities and the Tully-Fisher
1309: relation, $\sim (250/220)^4 = 1.67$ (Einasto \& Lynden-Bell 1982).
1310:
1311: K02 did not explore what maximum mass might still be consistent with
1312: the observational data for M31. However, to lowest order one may guess
1313: that the situation is similar as for the Milky Way, where the highest
1314: allowed mass is twice the favored mass. The maximum Local Group mass
1315: for the K02 models is therefore $\sim 5.2 \times 10^{12} \Msun$, while
1316: the favored mass is $M = 2.6 \times 10^{12} \Msun$. This assumes that
1317: the derived virial masses of the Milky Way and Andromeda apply to
1318: their entire subgroups of satellites. This is reasonable, given the
1319: uncertainties already inherent in the estimates. The largest
1320: satellites of both subgroups (the Large Magellanic Cloud and M33,
1321: respectively) have $\lta 10$\% of the luminosity of their parent
1322: galaxy, and most other satellites contribute $\lta 1$\%. Both the
1323: favored and the maximum mass of K02 exceed the value $M_{\rm bind,
1324: min} = 1.72^{+0.26}_{-0.25} \times 10^{12} \Msun$ derived in
1325: Section~\ref{ss:orbits}. This suggests that the Milky Way and M31 are
1326: indeed a bound system, as is usually assumed.
1327:
1328: We showed that the timing argument for a bound M31--Milky Way system
1329: implies a mass $M = 5.58^{+0.85}_{-0.72} \times 10^{12} \Msun$. This
1330: is consistent with the maximum mass allowed by the K02 models, but not
1331: with the favored mass. Even the tail of the probability distribution
1332: for $M_{\rm timing}$ in Figure~\ref{f:hist} doesn't go as low as $M =
1333: 2.6 \times 10^{12} \Msun$. The best agreements are obtained for the
1334: case of nearly radial orbits and a small M31 distance. For example,
1335: $V_{\rm tan} = 0$ and $D = 700 \kpc$ yields $M_{\rm timing} = 4.4
1336: \times 10^{12} \Msun$. But while this $V_{\rm tan}$ is consistent with
1337: our measurements, such a low distance is almost $2\sigma$ away from
1338: the value $D = 770 \pm 40 \kpc$ inferred using a wide range of methods
1339: (Holland 1998; Joshi \etal 2003; Walker 2003; Brown \etal 2004;
1340: McConnachie \etal 2005; Ribas \etal 2005).
1341:
1342: The timing argument provides a rather simplistic view of the evolution
1343: of a binary galaxy in a cosmological context. Several authors have
1344: therefore quantitatively studied its accuracy. Models that address the
1345: gravitational influence and torques of structures outside of the Local
1346: Group have generally concluded that these do not significantly bias
1347: the mass estimates obtained from the timing argument (Raychaudhury \&
1348: Lynden-Bell 1989; Peebles \etal 1989, 2001; Pasetto \& Chiosi 2007;
1349: see also Section~\ref{ss:vtan}). However, these models generally treat
1350: individual galaxies as point masses. So this does not address the fact
1351: that the galaxies themselves assemble hierarchically over time.
1352:
1353: To include hierarchical assembly it is necessary to perform more
1354: detailed dynamical calculations. Kroeker \& Carlberg (1991) studied
1355: the accuracy of the timing argument by examining binary galaxies found
1356: in an $N$-body simulation of a closed CDM Universe. They found that
1357: when $V_{\rm tan}$ is available, the timing argument provides an
1358: unbiased estimate of the total mass (measured in two spheres, centered
1359: on each galaxy, of radii one half the inter-galaxy separation). But
1360: estimates based on radial orbits yielded masses that were on average
1361: too low by a factor $\sim 1.7$. They also found that the galaxies must
1362: be bound for the timing argument to work, since it overestimates the
1363: actual mass of unbound pairs. The independent mass estimates of the
1364: Milky Way and M31 discussed above suggest that the galaxies are in
1365: fact bound, so this should not be an issue here. Kroeker \& Carlberg
1366: also show that the timing argument may not work well for pairs that
1367: are not isolated. This too should not be much of an issue for the
1368: M31--Milky Way system, given that the Sculptor, M81, and Maffei groups
1369: are all some $3 \Mpc$ away.
1370:
1371: Goldberg (2001) reached somewhat different conclusions than Kroeker \&
1372: Carlberg. He modeled binary galaxies using a perturbative least action
1373: approach in which the galaxies are part of a continuous fluid that
1374: collapses over the course of the simulation. The results were
1375: cross-validated against an N-body simulation, with consistent
1376: results. From his calculations he concluded that the timing argument
1377: tends to overestimate the total mass of a pair by a factor of $\sim
1378: 2$. The reason for the discrepancy between this result and that of
1379: Kroeker \& Carlberg is unclear. However, Goldberg's calculations are
1380: quite idealized, while Kroeker \& Carlberg's calculations are now
1381: quite dated (both in terms of numerical sophistication and underlying
1382: cosmology). A more modern theoretical investigation of the accuracy of
1383: timing argument was therefore presented recently by Li \& White
1384: (2008).\footnote{This paper came to our attention after the original
1385: submission of our own work.}
1386:
1387: Li \& White identified galaxy pairs in the so-called Millennium
1388: Simulation with properties similar to the Milky Way--M31 system. The
1389: high quality and detail of this cosmological simulation provides
1390: excellent statistics, with thousands of pairs available for
1391: study. They found that the {\it radial-orbit} timing mass estimator
1392: provides an unbiased estimate of the total mass of a pair (defined as
1393: the sum of the $M_{200}$ values, where $M_{200}$ is the mass inside
1394: the sphere over which the mean density is 200 times that of the
1395: Universe at large). With their preferred selection cuts, they found
1396: the ratio of the true to the estimated mass to be $A = 0.99 \pm 0.41$,
1397: where we transformed their quoted interquartile range to a traditional
1398: Gaussian dispersion. The simulations do not confirm the finding of
1399: Kroeker \& Carlberg (1991) that the bias in the estimate depends on
1400: $V_{\rm tan}$, but they do indicate that the dispersion in the
1401: estimate increases with $V_{\rm tan}$. Either way, the radial-orbit
1402: analysis of Li \& White is reasonable for the Milky Way--M31 system,
1403: since we have found that a radial orbit is consistent with the
1404: available observational constraints. The calculated ``theoretical
1405: uncertainty'' exceeds the uncertainties calculated here (see
1406: Figure~\ref{f:hist}) that result from propagation of observational
1407: errors. This theoretical uncertainty therefore drives the accuracy
1408: which we the Local Group mass is known from the timing argument. The
1409: preferred Local Group mass of K02 corresponds to a ratio $A=0.47$. This is
1410: $1.2\sigma$ away from timing mass that we have calculated (with
1411: $\sigma$ being the quadrature sum of the theoretical and observational
1412: uncertainties). Therefore, the two results are quite consistent. K02
1413: quote a mass uncertainty of a factor $\sim 2$, which is not too
1414: dissimilar from the timing mass uncertainty calculated by Li \& White
1415: (2008). Therefore, it is not a priori clear which estimate is to be
1416: preferred.
1417:
1418: \subsection{Local Group Turn-Around Radius}
1419: \label{ss:turn}
1420:
1421: An independent mass estimate is obtained from the turn-around radius
1422: $r_0$ of the Local Group, defined as the distance from the Local Group
1423: barycenter at which galaxies have a radial velocity of zero (e.g.,
1424: Lynden-Bell 1981). Using the same Keplerian formalism as in
1425: Section~\ref{ss:orbits}, galaxies on the turn-around surface have $\eta
1426: = \pi$ and $V_{\rm rad} = 0$. Equation~(\ref{Keplerpos}) therefore
1427: gives that
1428: %
1429: \begin{equation}
1430: \label{turnaround}
1431: r_0 = [G M (t/\pi)^2]^{1/3} (1+e) ,
1432: \end{equation}
1433: %
1434: where, as before, $t$ is the age of the Universe and $r_0$ is usually
1435: evaluated for radial orbits ($e=1$). Figure~\ref{f:hist} shows the
1436: probability distribution of the predicted $r_0$ thus obtained, with
1437: $M$ taken from the timing argument. The inferred $1\sigma$ confidence
1438: interval around the median is $r_0 = 1.56^{+0.08}_{-0.07} \Mpc$.
1439:
1440: The $r_0$ predicted from the M31--Milky Way timing argument can be
1441: compared to the observationally inferred value, $r_0 = 0.94 \pm 0.10
1442: \Mpc$ (e.g., Karachentsev \etal 2002). These values are not
1443: consistent. Since $r_0 \propto M^{1/3}$, the observed $r_0$ implies a
1444: Local Group mass of only $M = (1.3 \pm 0.3) \times 10^{12} \Msun$.
1445: Similar results are obtained when this method is applied to other
1446: nearby groups (Karachentsev \etal 2005). This mass is lower than that
1447: implied by the timing argument (as stressed previously by Lynden-Bell
1448: 1999) and it is also lower than that implied by almost all studies of
1449: the individual masses of the Milky Way and M31 (see
1450: Section~\ref{ss:mass}). Moreover, comparison of this mass to $M_{\rm
1451: bind, min} = 1.72^{+0.26}_{-0.25} \times 10^{12} \Msun$ from
1452: Section~\ref{ss:orbits} suggests that M31 and the Milky Way then do
1453: not form bound pair. This would make the Local Group little more than
1454: a chance superposition of two spiral galaxies. Such a configuration
1455: has fairly low a priori probability, given the local density of spiral
1456: galaxies (van den Bergh 1971).
1457:
1458: The agreement between the observed and predicted turn-around radii
1459: improves if the galaxies defining the turn-around surface are not on
1460: radial orbits. A value $e = 0.2$ in equation~(\ref{turnaround}) would
1461: yield perfect agreement. However, the corresponding orbits are then
1462: nearly circular and this would produce a considerable thickness in the
1463: zero-velocity surface which is inconsistent with observations
1464: (Lynden-Bell 1999). So a more reasonable conclusion may be that mass
1465: estimates based on the turn-around radius are systematically biased
1466: towards low values. Direct evidence for this comes from the action
1467: modeling of, e.g., Peebles \etal (2001). Their models reproduce both
1468: the distances and redshifts of the galaxies in the outer regions of
1469: the Local Group (see Table~\ref{t:outer}), despite the use of a Local
1470: Group mass $M = 5.16 \times 10^{12} \Msun$ that significantly exceeds
1471: the mass implied by equation~(\ref{turnaround}). This suggests that
1472: the isolated collapse picture on which the concept of a turn-around
1473: surface is based may not be suitable for the Local Group. The
1474: underlying reason may be that the dynamical structure near the edges
1475: of the Local Group is significantly influenced by structures in the
1476: mass distribution on larger scales. It should also be noted that the
1477: even in idealized models the zero-velocity surface is not actually
1478: expected to be a sphere, but an elongated ellipsoid (e.g., figure~6 in
1479: Peebles \etal 1989). This is not generally taken into account in
1480: observational determinations of $r_0$.
1481:
1482: \section{Conclusions}
1483: \label{s:conc}
1484:
1485: We estimated the transverse motion of M31 under the assumption that
1486: the satellites of M31 follow the motion of M31 through space, and
1487: under the assumption that the galaxies in the outer parts of the Local
1488: Group follow the motion of the Local Group barycenter through space.
1489: The first method was applied independently to a sample of 17
1490: satellites with known line-of-sight velocities, and to the 2
1491: satellites M33 and IC 10 with known proper motions. The second method
1492: was applied to a sample of 5 galaxies near the Local Group turn-around
1493: radius (and we showed that inclusion of 6 more distant galaxies does
1494: not significantly affect the results). The results from the different
1495: methods are mutually consistent and successfully recover the known
1496: line-of-sight velocity of M31. The weighted average heliocentric
1497: transverse velocity of M31 from the different methods in the West and
1498: North directions are found to be $\langle v_W \rangle = -78 \pm 41
1499: \kms$ and $\langle v_N \rangle = -38 \pm 34 \kms$.
1500:
1501: We used the known line-of-sight velocity with the newly inferred
1502: transverse velocity to determine the radial and tangential
1503: Galactocentric velocity components of M31. We used a Bayesian analysis
1504: to obtain the statistical probability distribution for $V_{\rm tan}$,
1505: properly corrected for observationally induced errors and biases. The
1506: results are that $V_{\rm rad} = -130 \pm 8 \kms$ and that the
1507: probability distribution for $V_{\rm tan}$ has a median value of $42
1508: \kms$ and a $1\sigma$ confidence interval $V_{\rm tan} \leq 56
1509: \kms$. A purely radial orbit is consistent with the data at this
1510: confidence level. These velocities are consistent with the predictions
1511: of the most recent action-method models for the history of the Local
1512: Group, and have small enough errors that they can start to
1513: meaningfully constrain the full solution space allowed by these
1514: models.
1515:
1516: We used the M31 velocity vector to constrain the relative M31--Milky
1517: Way orbit. The minimum mass required for a bound orbit is $M_{\rm
1518: bind, min} = 1.72^{+0.26}_{-0.25} \times 10^{12} \Msun$. If the orbit
1519: is indeed bound, then the timing argument combined with the known age
1520: of the Universe implies that $M = 5.58^{+0.85}_{-0.72} \times 10^{12}
1521: \Msun$. This is consistent with mass range suggested by cosmologically
1522: motivated models for the individual structure and dynamics of M31 and
1523: the Milky Way, respectively. However, the timing mass is on the high
1524: end of the allowed range, with the most favored models in the study of
1525: K02 yielding a Local Group mass of only $2.6 \times 10^{12}
1526: \Msun$. This indicates that the M31 and the Milky Way are indeed
1527: bound, but that their total mass could be lower than suggested by the
1528: timing argument. Li \& White (2008) performed a theoretical
1529: calibration of the timing argument and found that while the timing
1530: argument mass is unbiased, it does have a theoretical dispersion of
1531: 41\%. Therefore, it is not statistically implausible that for the
1532: specific case of the Milky Way--M31 system the timing argument mass
1533: could be an overestimate by a factor of $\sim 2$. The method of
1534: estimating the Local Group mass based on the size of the turn-around
1535: (zero-velocity) radius yield systematically lower masses than other
1536: methods, and is in fact not consistent with a bound nature for the
1537: M31--Milky Way orbit. This and other arguments suggest that this
1538: method yields incorrect masses that are systematically biased low.
1539:
1540: The M31 transverse velocity implies that M33 is in a tightly bound
1541: orbit around M31. The calculations of L05 indicate that for 82\% of
1542: Monte-Carlo samplings from the error ellipse, more tidal deformation
1543: of M33 would have been expected than is observed. However, this
1544: assumes that $M_{\rm M31} = 2.6$--$3.4 \times 10^{12} \Msun$. The
1545: percentage is lower, and the agreement between observational and
1546: theoretical constraints on the M31 transverse velocity is better, if
1547: the M31 mass is as low as $1.6 \times 10^{12} \Msun$, as advocated by
1548: K02. Nonetheless, our results indicate that some tidal deformation of
1549: M33 could certainly have occurred. So it will be worthwhile to perform
1550: more deep searches for tidal tails and structures in the outer regions
1551: of M33. The estimates of the Local Group timing mass do not change
1552: significantly if the theoretical constraints from the L05 study of M33
1553: structure are strictly enforced.
1554:
1555: The transverse velocity inferred for M31 (the weighted average in
1556: Table~\ref{t:Andvel}) corresponds to a proper motion $\mu_W \equiv
1557: -{\dot \alpha} \cos \delta = -21.5 \pm 11.1 \uasyr$ and $\mu_N \equiv
1558: {\dot \delta} = -10.4 \pm 9.3 \uasyr$ at a distance $D = 770 \kpc$. It
1559: will be difficult to obtain an actual proper motion measurement in the
1560: near future that will rival the accuracy of this. The most accurate
1561: Hubble Space Telescope proper motion measurements for any Local Group
1562: galaxy (for the Large and Small Magellanic Cloud; Kallivayalil \etal
1563: 2006a,b) have errors of 50--$80 \uasyr$. VLBI measurements of water
1564: masers can provide errors of only 5--$10 \uasyr$ (Brunthaler \etal
1565: 2005, 2007). This is actually not much better than what we have
1566: already presented here. Moreover, no water masers are known in M31 to
1567: which this technique can be applied and, at present detection limits,
1568: may be none should be expected (Brunthaler \etal 2006). Therefore, a
1569: high accuracy measurement of the proper motion of M31 will have to
1570: await future generations of astrometric satellites. However, even SIM
1571: or GAIA measurements will at best have uncertainties that are only a
1572: few times smaller than those reported here (see section~12 of Unwin
1573: \etal 2007), and moreover, results are not expected from these
1574: satellites for at least another decade.
1575:
1576: It may be possible to improve the results presented here by using a
1577: larger number of tracers of the M31 velocity. If the sample of M31
1578: satellites with water maser proper motions can be increased from 2 to
1579: $\sim 8$, then this would halve the uncertainty in the average result
1580: from the method in Section~\ref{ss:pm}. However, this may not be
1581: possible. Water masers are often associated with regions of star
1582: formation, whereas most M31 satellites are early type dwarf
1583: ellipticals or spheroidals (see Table~\ref{t:satel}). Even in the
1584: gas-rich satellites the prospects for new water maser discoveries are
1585: not good (Brunthaler \etal 2006). Therefore, the number of satellites
1586: for which water maser proper motions can be obtained is fundamentally
1587: limited. Alternatively, it may be possible to increase the number of
1588: tracers at large distances from M31 for which line-of-sight velocities
1589: are available. A significant increase would be needed (from 17 to
1590: $\sim 68$) to merely halve the uncertainties in our result from
1591: Section~\ref{ss:los}. While new satellites of M31 continue to be
1592: discovered on a regular basis (e.g., Zucker \etal 2007; Ibata \etal
1593: 2007), this is unlikely to significantly affect the
1594: statistics. Individual Red Giant Branch stars in the outer halo of M31
1595: may be more promising (e.g., Gilbert \etal 2006), since it is
1596: possible, at least in principle, to obtain line-of-sight velocities
1597: for large numbers of such stars.
1598:
1599: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1600: % Acknowledgments
1601: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1602:
1603: \acknowledgments
1604:
1605: We thank Nitya Kallivayalil and Gurtina Besla for a careful reading of
1606: this paper, and Anatoly Klypin, Frank van den Bosch, Lars Hernquist,
1607: and T.J. Cox for useful discussions. We thank the anonymous referee
1608: for helpful suggestions that improved the presentation of the paper.
1609: We made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED), which is
1610: operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Caltech.
1611:
1612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1613: % Appendix
1614: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1615:
1616: % Uncomment if there are appendices
1617: % \appendix
1618:
1619: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1620: % Start references on a new page, unless we are in emulate mode
1621: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1622:
1623:
1624: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1625: % Reference List
1626: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1627:
1628: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1629:
1630: \bibitem[]{Bar17}
1631: Barnard, E. E. 1917, AJ, 30, 175
1632:
1633: \bibitem[]{Bes07}
1634: Besla, G., Kallivayalil, N., Hernquist, L., Robertson, B., Cox, T. J.,
1635: van der Marel, R. P., \& Alcock, C. 2007, ApJ, 668, 949
1636:
1637: \bibitem[]{Bin87}
1638: Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics
1639: (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
1640:
1641: \bibitem[]{Bro04}
1642: Brown, T. M., Ferguson, H. C., Smith, E., Kimble, R. A., Sweigart, A. V.,
1643: Renzini, A., \& Rich, R. M. 2004, AJ, 127, 2738
1644:
1645: \bibitem[]{Bru05}
1646: Brunthaler, A., Reid, M. J., Falcke, H., Greenhill, L. J., \& Henkel, C.
1647: 2005, Science, 307, 1440
1648:
1649: \bibitem[]{Bru06}
1650: Brunthaler, A., Henkel, C., de Blok, W. J. G., Reid, M. J., Greenhill, L. J.,
1651: \& Falcke, H. 2006, A\&A, 457, 109
1652:
1653: \bibitem[]{Bru07}
1654: Brunthaler, A., Reid, M. J., Falcke, H., Henkel, C., \& Menten, K. M.
1655: 2007, A\&A, 462, 101
1656:
1657: \bibitem[]{Cha05}
1658: Chapman, S. C., Ibata, R., Lewis, G. F., Ferguson, A. M. N., Irwin, M.,
1659: McConnachie, A., \& Tanvir, N. 2005, ApJ, 632, L87
1660:
1661: \bibitem[]{Cha07}
1662: Chapman, S. C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 662, L79
1663:
1664: \bibitem[]{Cor97}
1665: Corbelli, E. \& Schneider, S. E. 1997, ApJ, 479, 244
1666:
1667: \bibitem[]{Cou99}
1668: Courteau, S. \& van den Bergh, S. 1999, AJ, 118, 337
1669:
1670: \bibitem[]{Cox07}
1671: Cox, T. J., \& Loeb, A. 2007, MNRAS, submitted [arXiv:0705.1170]
1672:
1673: \bibitem[]{Deh98}
1674: Dehnen, W., Binney, J. J. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 387
1675:
1676: \bibitem[]{Dun 93}
1677: Dunn, A. M., \& Laflamme, R. 1993, MNRAS, 264, 865
1678:
1679: \bibitem[]{Ein82}
1680: Einasto, J., \& Lynden-Bell, D. 1982, MNRAS, 199, 67
1681:
1682: \bibitem[]{Eva00a}
1683: Evans, N. W., \& Wilkinson, M. I. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 929
1684:
1685: \bibitem[]{Eva00b}
1686: Evans, N. W., Wilkinson, M. I., Guhathakurta, P., Grebel, E. K., \&
1687: Vogt, S. S. 2000, ApJ, 540, L9
1688:
1689: \bibitem[]{Fer02}
1690: Ferguson, A. M. N., Irwin, M. J., Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., \&
1691: Tanvir, N. R. 2002, AJ, 124, 1452
1692:
1693: \bibitem[]{Gil06}
1694: Gilbert, K. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 1188
1695:
1696: \bibitem[]{Gol01}
1697: Goldberg, D. M. 2001, ApJ, 550, 87
1698:
1699: \bibitem[]{Got78}
1700: Gott, J. R., \& Thuan, T. X. 1978, ApJ, 223, 426
1701:
1702: \bibitem[]{Gre03}
1703: Grebel, E. K., Gallagher III, J. S., \& Harbeck, D. 2003, AJ, 125, 1926
1704:
1705: \bibitem[]{Hol98}
1706: Holland, S. 1998, AJ, 115, 1916
1707:
1708: \bibitem[]{Iba07}
1709: Ibata, R., Martin, N. F., Irwin, M., Chapman, S., Ferguson, A. M. N.,
1710: Lewis, G. F., McConnachie, A. W. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1591
1711:
1712: \bibitem[]{Jos03}
1713: Joshi, Y. C., Pandey, A. K., Narashima, D., Sagar, R., \&
1714: Giraud-H\'eraud, Y. 2003, A\&A, 402, 113
1715:
1716: \bibitem[]{Kah59}
1717: Kahn, F. D., \& Woltjer, L. 1959, ApJ, 130, 705
1718:
1719: \bibitem[]{Kal07}
1720: Kalirai, J. S., Guhathakurta, P., Zucker, D. B., et al. 2007, in prep.
1721:
1722: \bibitem[]{Kal06a}
1723: Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., Alcock, C., Axelrod, T., Cook, K. H.,
1724: Drake, A. J., \& Geha, M. 2006a, ApJ, 638, 772
1725:
1726: \bibitem[]{Kal06b}
1727: Kallivayalil, N., van der Marel, R. P., \& Alcock, C. 2006b,
1728: ApJ, 652, 1213
1729:
1730: \bibitem[]{Kar02}
1731: Karachentsev, I. D. et al. 2002, A\&A, 389, 812
1732:
1733: \bibitem[]{Kar05}
1734: Karachentsev, I. D. 2005, AJ, 129, 178
1735:
1736: \bibitem[]{Ker86}
1737: Kerr, F. J., \& Lynden-Bell, D. 1986, MNRAS, 221, 1023
1738:
1739: \bibitem[]{Kib85}
1740: Kibble, T. W. B. 1985, Classical Mechanics (New York: Longman)
1741:
1742: \bibitem[]{Kly02}
1743: Klypin, A., Zhao., H. S., \& Somerville, R. S. 2002, 573, 597 (K02)
1744:
1745: \bibitem[]{Koc06}
1746: Koch, A., \& Grebel, E. K. 2006, AJ, 131, 1405
1747:
1748: \bibitem[]{Koc96}
1749: Kochanek, C. S. 1996, ApJ, 457, 228
1750:
1751: \bibitem[]{Kro91}
1752: Kroeker, T. L., \& Carlberg, R. G. 1991, ApJ, 376, 1
1753:
1754: \bibitem[]{Li08}
1755: Li, Y.-S., \& White, S. D. M. 2008, MNRAS, in press [arXiv:0710.3740]
1756:
1757: \bibitem[]{Loe06}
1758: Loeb, A., Reid, M. J., Brunthaler, A., \& Falcke, H.
1759: 2005, ApJ, 633, 894 (L05)
1760:
1761: \bibitem[]{Lyn77}
1762: Lynden-Bell, D., \& Lin, D. N. C. 1977, MNRAS, 181, 37
1763:
1764: \bibitem[]{Lyn81}
1765: Lynden-Bell, D. 1981, The Observatory, 101, 111
1766:
1767: \bibitem[]{Lyn99}
1768: Lynden-Bell, D. 1999, in ``The stellar content of Local Group
1769: galaxies'', Proc.~IAU Symp.~192, Whitelock, P., \& Cannon, R., eds.,
1770: p.~39 (San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific)
1771:
1772: \bibitem[]{Maj07}
1773: Majewski, S. R., et al. 2007, ApJL, 670, L9
1774:
1775: \bibitem[]{Mar06}
1776: Martin, N. F., Ibata, R. A., Irwin, M. J., Chapman, S., Lewis, G. F.,
1777: Ferguson, A. M. N., Tanvir, N., \& McConnachie, A. W. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1983
1778:
1779: \bibitem[]{Mar07}
1780: Martinez-Vaquero, L. A., Yepes, G., \& Hoffman, Y. 2007, MNRAS,
1781: 378, 1601
1782:
1783: \bibitem[]{Mac04}
1784: McConnachie, A. W., Irwin, M. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., Ibata, R. A., Lewis,
1785: G. F., \& Tanvir, N. 2004, MNRAS, 350, 243
1786:
1787: \bibitem[]{Mac05}
1788: McConnachie, A. W., Irwin, M. J., Ferguson, A. M. N., Ibata, R. A., Lewis,
1789: G. F., \& Tanvir, N. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 979
1790:
1791: \bibitem[]{McC06}
1792: McConnachie, A. W., \& Irwin, M. J. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 902
1793:
1794: \bibitem[]{Met07}
1795: Metz, M., Kroupa, P., \& Jerjen, H. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 1125
1796:
1797: \bibitem[]{Pas07}
1798: Pasetto, S., \& Chiosi, C. 2007, A\&A, 463, 427
1799:
1800: \bibitem[]{Pee89a}
1801: Peebles, P. J. E. 1989, ApJ, 344, L53
1802:
1803: \bibitem[]{Pee89b}
1804: Peebles, P. J. E., Melott, A. L., Holmes, M. R., \& Jiang, L. R. 1989,
1805: ApJ, 345, 108
1806:
1807: \bibitem[]{Pee94}
1808: Peebles, P. J. E. 1994, ApJ, 429, 43
1809:
1810: \bibitem[]{Pee01}
1811: Peebles, P. J. E., Phelps, S. D., Shaya, E. J., \& Tully, R. B. 2001,
1812: ApJ, 554, 104 (P01)
1813:
1814: \bibitem[]{Ray89}
1815: Raychaudhury, S., \& Lynden-Bell, D. 1989, MNRAS, 240, 195
1816:
1817: \bibitem[]{Rib05}
1818: Ribas, I., Jordi, C., Vilardell, F., Fitzpatrick, E. L.,
1819: Hilditch, R. W., \& Guinan, E. F. 2005, ApJ, 635, L37
1820:
1821: \bibitem[]{Sch98}
1822: Schmoldt, I. M., \& Saha, P. 1998, AJ, 115, 2231
1823:
1824: \bibitem[]{Sha95}
1825: Shaya, E. J., Peebles, P. J. E., \& Tully, R. B. 1995, ApJ, 454, 15
1826:
1827: \bibitem[]{Spe07}
1828: Spergel, D. N., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 377
1829:
1830: \bibitem{Unw07}
1831: Unwin, S. C. 2007, PASP, in press [arXiv:0708.3953]
1832:
1833: \bibitem{vdB71}
1834: van den Bergh, S. 1971, A\&A, 11, 154
1835:
1836: \bibitem{vdB00}
1837: van den Bergh, S. 2000, The Galaxies of the Local Group (Cambridge: Cambridge
1838: University Press)
1839:
1840: \bibitem[]{vdM00}
1841: van der Marel, R. P., Magorrian, J., Carlberg, R. G., Yee, H. K. C., \&
1842: Ellingson, E. 2000, AJ, 119, 2038
1843:
1844: \bibitem[]{vdM01a}
1845: van der Marel, R. P., \& Cioni, M.-R. 2001, AJ, 122, 1807
1846:
1847: \bibitem[]{vdM02}
1848: van der Marel, R. P., Alves, D. R., Hardy, E., \& Suntzeff, N. B.
1849: 2002, AJ, 124, 2639
1850:
1851: \bibitem[]{Wil99}
1852: Wilkinson, M. I., \& Evans, N. W. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 645
1853:
1854: \bibitem[]{Wal03}
1855: Walker, A. R. 2003, in Stellar Candles for the Extragalactic Distance Scale,
1856: D. Alloin \& W. Gieren, eds., 265 (New York: Springer)
1857:
1858: \bibitem[]{Yah77}
1859: Yahil, A., Tammann, G. A., \& Sandage, A. 1977, ApJ, 217, 903
1860:
1861: \bibitem[]{Zuc07}
1862: Zucker, D., et al. 2007, ApJ, 659, L21
1863:
1864: \end{thebibliography}{}
1865:
1866: \end{document}
1867: