1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: \bibliographystyle{mn2e}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{epstopdf}
7: \usepackage{subfigure}
8:
9:
10: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
12: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
13: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
14: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
15: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
16: \newcommand{\msun}{\mbox{$M_{\odot}$}}
17: \newcommand{\rsun}{\mbox{$d_{\odot}$}}
18: \newcommand{\vcirc}{\mbox{$V_{circ}$}}
19: \newcommand{\rvir}{\mbox{$r_{vir}$}}
20: \newcommand{\mvir}{\mbox{$M_{vir}$}}
21: \newcommand{\kms}{\mbox{km s$^{-1}$}}
22: \newcommand{\plm}{\mbox{$\pm$}}
23: \newcommand{\Mpc}{{\rm Mpc}}
24: \newcommand{\kpc}{{\rm kpc}}
25: \newcommand{\apj}{ApJ}
26: \newcommand{\apjl}{ApJL}
27: \newcommand{\mnras}{MNRAS}
28: \newcommand{\aj}{AJ}
29: \newcommand{\apjs}{ApJS}
30: \newcommand{\nat}{{\it Nature}}
31: \newcommand{\pasj}{PASJ}
32:
33: \def\lsim{~\rlap{$<$}{\lower 1.0ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
34:
35: \def\gsim{~\rlap{$>$}{\lower 1.0ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
36:
37:
38: \title[Orbit of the LMC]{Implications of Recent Measurements of the Milky
39: Way Rotation for the Orbit of the Large Magellanic Cloud} \author[Shattow
40: \& Loeb]{Genevieve Shattow and Abraham Loeb\\
41: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St, Cambridge,
42: MA 02138} \date{\today}
43:
44: %%% BEGIN DOCUMENT
45: \begin{document}
46:
47: \maketitle
48:
49: \label{firstpage}
50: \begin{abstract}
51: We examine the implications of recent measurements of the Milky Way
52: (MW) rotation for the trajectory of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC).
53: The $\sim 14\pm 6\%$ increase in the MW circular velocity relative to
54: the IAU standard of $220~\kms$ changes the qualitative nature of the
55: inferred LMC orbit. Instead of the LMC being gravitationally unbound,
56: as has been suggested based on a recent measurement of its proper
57: motion, we find that the past orbit of the LMC is naturally confined
58: within the virial boundary of the MW. The orbit is not as tightly
59: bound as in models derived before the LMC proper motion was measured.
60:
61:
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64:
65: \begin{keywords}
66: Magellanic Clouds -- Local Group -- galaxies: kinematics and dynamics
67: \end{keywords}
68:
69: \section{Introduction}
70: \label{sec:intro}
71:
72: Recently, Kallivayalil et al. (2006; hereafter K06) measured the
73: proper motion of the the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), and pioneered a
74: first assessment of its 3D velocity vector. Based on this
75: measurement, Besla et al. (2007; hereafter B07) concluded that the LMC
76: was unlikely to have passed near the Milky Way (MW) before and was
77: most likely formed outside of the boundaries of the Galaxy, in
78: contrast to traditional scenarios (see references in van der Marel et
79: al. 2002; hereafter vdM02). This new conclusion is intriguing given
80: that there are no other examples of massive gas-rich galaxies like the
81: LMC within the much bigger volume that separates the MW from its
82: neighboring galaxy, Andromeda (M31). Other recent studies have also
83: found the B07 results difficult to accept and propose alternate
84: strategies of binding the LMC and MW either through MOND gravity (Wu
85: et al. 2008) or by giving the LMC and its smaller counterpart, the
86: Small Magellanic Cloud, a common halo (Bekki 2008).
87:
88:
89: A couple of years after K06 published their findings, Piatek et
90: al. (2008; hereafter P08) confirmed independently their results to
91: within one standard deviation, although at the lower end of the
92: inferred range of values. Also, within the past five years, the
93: circular velocity of the MW and the distance between the Sun
94: and the galactic center have been updated by Reid \& Brunthaler (2004;
95: hereafter RB04) and Gillessen et al. (2008; hereafter GGE08),
96: respectively. These increased the likely circular velocity of the MW
97: from the IAU standard of $V_{circ}=220$ \kms~to 251$\plm15$ \kms. A
98: value of 220 \kms~now corresponds to a reduction of the best-fit value
99: by two standard deviations (and equivalent to moving the Sun a total
100: of 1 kpc closer to the center of the Galaxy). Uemura et al. (2000)
101: used parallax measurements from Hipparcos and SKYMAP to obtain a
102: similar value of $V_{circ}=255\plm8$ \kms.
103:
104: The rotation speed of the MW affects the analysis of the past LMC
105: orbit in two ways. First, because the proper motion of the LMC is
106: measured relative to the solar system which orbits the Galaxy, it is
107: necessary to know the rotational velocity of the Sun in order to
108: transform to the Galactocentric frame (see, e.g. vdM02). Second, the
109: depth of the gravitational potential well of the MW (involving its
110: estimated mass and scale radius) depends on the normalization of its
111: rotation curve. B07 adopted the IAU standard in their analysis
112: instead of the modified values for the Milky Way's rotation. In this
113: {\it Letter}, we examine the implications of the change in the MW
114: parameters for the LMC orbit (also with the updated P08 value). In
115: the particular geometry of the LMC orbit, both of the above-mentioned
116: effects make the LMC more gravitationally bound to the MW owing to an
117: increase in $V_{circ}$. Despite the small fractional magnitude of the
118: correction in circular velocity ($\sim 14\pm 6\%$), we find that the
119: qualitative nature of the LMC orbit changes. Instead of the LMC being
120: possibly unbound as suggested by B07, the $\sim 10\%$ decrease in the LMC
121: velocity and the $\sim 50\%$ increase in the MW mass lead us
122: to conclude that the LMC's past trajectory was probably confined
123: within the virial radius of the MW. The apogalacticon distance of the
124: orbit is comparable to the MW virial radius, as expected for a
125: satellite that had formed at the outer edge of the Galactic halo.
126:
127: Traditional studies of the LMC's orbit around the MW (e.g., Murai \&
128: Fujimoto 1980; Lin \& Lynden-Bell 1982; Gardiner et al. 1994; Lin et
129: al. 1995; Gardiner \& Noguchi 1996; vdM02; Bekki \& Chiba 2005;
130: Mastropietro et al. 2005; Connors et al. 2006) considered the MW as an
131: isolated galaxy. While this might have been acceptable for studies
132: where the LMC's orbit was confined well within the MW halo, the high
133: LMC velocity measured by K06 and P08 implies (B07) that the
134: apogalacticon could extend beyond the edge of the MW's halo -- where
135: the gravitational influence of M31 is non-negligible (see Table 1 in
136: B07). Thus, we also include the tidal effect of M31 in our
137: calculations.
138:
139: In \S \ref{sec:method} we describe our adopted model for the mass
140: distribution of the MW halo. We then calculate the past LMC orbit (\S
141: \ref{sec:const}) and the effect of M31 on it (\S \ref{sec:M31}). Finally,
142: we discuss the implications of our results in \S \ref{sec:disc}.
143:
144: %Methodology
145: \section{Method}
146: \label{sec:method}
147:
148: Following B07, we adopt a Navarro, Frenk, \& White (1996; hereafter
149: NFW) mass profile for the dark matter distribution in the MW halo, and
150: include dynamical friction (Chandrasekhar 1943, Hashimoto 2003) in
151: calculating the LMC motion through the MW halo. We also add the
152: gravitational potential of M31 in the form of another NFW profile at a
153: present-day Galactocentric distance of 780 kpc (McConnachie et
154: al. 2005; Cox \& Loeb 2008 and references therein). The full
155: gravitational potential $\Phi_{tot}$ as a function of radius $r$ in
156: each galaxy (either MW or M31) includes contributions from a disk
157: ($\Phi_{disk}$), a bulge ($\Phi_{bulge}$), and a dark matter halo
158: ($\Phi_{NFW}$),
159: \begin{equation}
160: \Phi_{tot}(r)=\Phi_{disk}(r)+\Phi_{bulge}(r)+\Phi_{NFW}(r) ,
161: \end{equation}
162: where (Xue et al. 2008)
163: \begin{eqnarray}
164: \Phi_{disk}(r)=-\frac{GM_{disk}(1-e^{-\frac{r}{b}})}{r}, \\
165: \Phi_{bulge}(r)=-\frac{GM_{bulge}}{r+c_{0}}, \\
166: \Phi_{NFW}(r)=-\frac{4\pi G\rho_{s}r_{vir}^3}{c^3r}\ln(1+\frac{cr}{r_{vir}}),
167: \end{eqnarray}
168: with
169: \begin{equation}
170: \rho_{s}=\frac{\rho_{cr}\Omega_{m}\delta_{th}}{3}\frac{c^{3}}{ln(1+c)-c/(1+c)} .
171: \end{equation}
172:
173: We adopt the standard $\Lambda$CDM cosmological parameters $\Omega_m=0.3$,
174: $H_0=70~\kms\Mpc^{-1}$ (Komatsu et al. 2008), and an overdensity of
175: $\delta_{th}=340$ (Wechsler et al 2002; Klypin, Zhao, \& Somerville 2002),
176: with
177: \begin{equation}
178: \mvir=\frac{4\pi}{3}\rho_{cr}\Omega_{m}\delta_{th}r_{vir}^{3}\propto
179: V_{circ}^{3} ,
180: \label{eqn:mvir}
181: \end{equation}
182: and $\rho_{cr}=3H_0^{2}/8\pi G$.
183:
184: Some of our initial conditions (e.g., \mvir~and \rvir) depend on the
185: distance of the Sun from the center of the MW galaxy, as will be discussed
186: in \S \ref{sec:const}, but we consistently adopt
187: $M_{disk}=4\times10^{10}\msun$, $M_{bulge}=0.8\times10^{10}\msun$, a disk
188: scale length $b=3.5 ~\kpc$, a disk scale height $c_{0}=0.7 ~\kpc$, and a
189: halo concentration $c=12$ for the MW; and $M_{disk}=7\times10^{10}\msun$,
190: $M_{bulge}=1.9\times10^{10}\msun$, $\mvir=1.6\times10^{12}\msun$, $b=5.7~
191: \kpc$, $c_{0}=1.14 ~\kpc$, $\rvir=300 ~\kpc$, and $c=12$ for M31, as
192: suggested by Klypin et al. (2002). Aside from the revised normalization of
193: \mvir ~and \rvir ~based on the modified value of \vcirc, we have used the
194: same mass profile as B07.
195:
196:
197: %Constraints
198: \section{Constraints on the Orbital History}
199: \label{sec:const}
200:
201: Previous calculations of the history of the LMC have adopted the IAU
202: standard values of $\rsun=8.5~ \kpc$ and $\vcirc=220~\kms$, as derived
203: by Kerr \& Lynden-Bell (1986; hereafter KLB86). These values assume
204: the angular velocity of circular rotation for the Sun to be
205: $\Theta_{0}/\rsun=25.9~\kms\kpc^{-1}$. RB04 directly measured this
206: value\footnote{The supermassive black hole, Sgr A*, is expected to lie
207: nearly motionless at the dynamical center of the MW since its mass far
208: exceeds that of the surrounding stars. Hence, the apparent motion of
209: SgrA* on the sky represents the reflex of the Sun's orbit around the
210: Galactic center, including both the mean Galactic rotation and the
211: small peculiar motion of the Sun relative to the local standard of
212: rest (RB04).} from the proper motion of Sgr A* to be
213: $\Theta_{0}/\rsun=29.45\pm.15~\kms\kpc^{-1}$, which using
214: $\rsun=8\plm.5~\kpc$ (Reid 1993) implies $\vcirc=236\plm15~ \kms$.
215: Based on the observed orbits of individual stars around Sgr A*, Ghez
216: et al. (2008) and GGE08 measured the distance of the Sun from the MW
217: center to be $\rsun=8.4\plm 0.4~ \kpc$, assuming that Sgr A* is at
218: rest\footnote{Since the surrounding stars are lighter by six orders of
219: magnitude than Sgr A*, and since there is currently no evidence for a
220: second (intermediate mass) black hole, the assumption that Sgr
221: A* is at rest at the dynamical center of the MW appear most
222: natural.}. These latest measurements are similar to the value inferred
223: by KLB86, and bring the maximum \vcirc ~(within 1-$\sigma$) up to 265 \kms, which is $\sim
224: 20$\% higher than the 220 \kms~ on which all prior studies were based.
225: Calculations based solely on KLB86 are therefore at the lower end (2-$\sigma$ below) of
226: the allowed values for \mvir, \vcirc, and \rvir. The new values are
227: listed in Table \ref{tab:MVr}. The inferred masses and radii assume
228: the commonly accepted value of $\mvir=1\times10^{12}\msun$ for
229: $\vcirc=220~ \kms$. The values of $v_{X},~v_{Y},~v_{Z}$ (corresponding
230: to Galactic Coordinates X, Y, Z) were all calculated using the
231: standard method of vdM02, changing only the value of \vcirc.
232:
233: While all of the recalculated masses are consistent with various
234: recent measurements, the circular velocity of 251~\kms, corresponding
235: to \mvir=$1.485\times10^{12}\msun$, gives the minimum value of the
236: virial mass that is consistent with the timing argument, which puts
237: the total mass of the Local Group (LG) between $3.2\times10^{12}\msun$
238: and $5.5\times10^{12}\msun$ (Binney \& Tremaine 1987, hereafter BT87;
239: van der Marel \& Guhathakurta 2008, hereafter vdMG08; Li \& White
240: 2008). The MW and M31 galaxies dominate the LG and are of comparable
241: masses; a combined mass of $3$--$4\times10^{12}\msun$ is on the lower
242: end of the timing argument estimate. Li \& White (2008), using the
243: Millennium Simulation and data on Leo I, find the most likely mass for
244: MW halo to be $M_{MW}=2.34\times10^{12}\msun$ with a lower limit of
245: $0.8\times10^{12}\msun$, giving a more than adequate range to
246: acommodate our inferred masses. Additional mass estimates of the MW
247: halo are found in Table \ref{tab:MW} and discussed further in \S
248: \ref{sec:disc}.
249:
250: \begin{table}
251: \caption{Modified Values for \vcirc, \mvir, and \rvir~of the MW}
252: \label{tab:MVr}
253: \begin{tabular}{@{}ccccc}
254: \hline
255: \rsun & \vcirc & \mvir & \rvir & color \\
256: (kpc) & (\kms) & ($10^{12}\msun$) & (kpc) & \\
257: \hline
258: \hline
259: 7.5 & 220 & 1.000 & 258 & yellow \\
260: 8.0 & 236 & 1.234 & 277 & green\\
261: 8.5 & 251 & 1.485 & 295 & blue\\
262: 9.0 & 265 & 1.748 & 310 & purple\\
263: \hline
264: \end{tabular}
265: \end{table}
266:
267: The P08(251~\kms) entry (with this notation denoting the
268: proper motion from P08 and a circular velocity of 251 \kms) in Table 2
269: for the LMC velocity of 339 \kms~is significantly lower (by more than
270: 2--$\sigma$) than the K06(220~\kms) value of 378\plm18 \kms, although
271: it is higher than the vdM02(220~\kms) weighted average of previous
272: studies, 293\plm39 \kms. Comparing the corresponding LMC velocities
273: for $\vcirc=251~\kms$, the K06 and P08 values are much closer (in
274: agreement with their initial transverse velocities being within one
275: standard deviation of each other). P08, K06, and vdM02 with
276: $\vcirc=251~ \kms$ are all compared in Figure \ref{fig:distance2}.
277: Figure \ref{fig:distance} compares the P08 proper motion at various
278: values of \vcirc.
279:
280: \begin{table}
281: \caption{Calculated velocities for the LMC}
282: \label{tab:vel}
283: \begin{tabular}{@{}lcccc}
284: \hline
285: Author& \vcirc & $v_{X},v_{Y},v_{Z}$ & $|v|$ & color \\
286: ~ & (\kms) & (\kms) & (\kms) & \\
287: \hline
288: \hline
289: vdM02 & 220 & -56, -220, 186 & 293 &\\
290: vdM02 & 251 & -56, -189, 186 & 271 & gray\\
291: K06 & 220 & -86, -268, 252 & 377 & \\
292: K06 & 251 & -86, -237, 252 & 356 & black\\
293: P08 & 220 & -83, -258, 238 & 360 & yellow\\
294: P08 & 236 & -83, -243, 238 & 350 & green\\
295: P08 & 251 & -83, -227, 238 & 339 & blue\\
296: P08 & 265 & -83, -213, 238 & 330 & purple\\
297: \hline
298: \end{tabular}
299: \end{table}
300:
301: \begin{figure}
302: \centering
303: \includegraphics[width=3in]{distance2.eps}
304: \caption{Distance of the LMC from the center of the MW galaxy as a
305: function of time (with zero as the present time) for orbital
306: velocities published in previous studies (see Table 2), but assuming
307: $\vcirc=251~\kms$ for the MW. The blue line is from P08, the gray line is
308: from vdM02, and the black line is from K06/B07.}
309: \label{fig:distance2}
310: \end{figure}
311: \begin{figure}
312: \centering
313: \includegraphics[width=3in]{distance.eps}
314: \caption{Distance of the LMC from the center of the MW galaxy. The yellow
315: trajectory (corresponding to $\vcirc=220~\kms$) is gravitationally
316: unbound to the MW. The green trajectory (corresponding to
317: $\vcirc=236~\kms$) is also unbound. The blue orbit (corresponding to
318: $\vcirc=251~\kms$) is bound to the MW, with a period of $\sim 6.3$ Gyr
319: and an apogalacticon of 347 kpc. The value of \rvir~at this \vcirc~is
320: 295 kpc (see Table \ref{tab:MVr} and equation \ref{eqn:mvir}). The
321: purple orbit, corresponding to $\vcirc=265~\kms$, is more tightly
322: bound, with a period of $\sim 3.5$ Gyr and an apogalacticon distance
323: of 214 kpc. This distance is well within the virial radius
324: \rvir$=310$ kpc at this value of \vcirc.}
325: \label{fig:distance}
326: \end{figure}
327: \begin{figure}
328: \centering
329: \includegraphics[width=3in]{2dpathlg.eps}
330: \caption{Projection of the path of the LMC onto the Y--Z plane
331: (Galactic coordinates) of the LG over the past 8 Gyr. The
332: yellow, green, blue, and purple trajectories correspond to
333: $\vcirc=220,~236, ~251,$ and $265~\kms$, respectively. The red line
334: traces the path of M31 (the large red dot) from and towards the MW. The
335: Galactic (MW) center is located at the black dot and the LMC center is
336: represented by the small blue dot. The approximate virial radii of the MW and M31
337: are traced out by the dashed lines.}
338: \label{fig:2dpathlg}
339: \includegraphics[width=3in]{2dpath.eps}
340: \caption{A close-up of the MW galactic center in Figure \ref{fig:2dpathlg}.}
341: \label{fig:2dpath}
342: \end{figure}
343:
344:
345: %M31
346: \section{Tidal Effect of M31}
347: \label{sec:M31}
348:
349: In our simplified analysis of the dynamics of M31, we ignore its
350: transverse motion and consider only the perturbative influence of M31
351: as its radial distance changes relative to the MW (BT87). While the
352: transverse component of M31's velocity might be non-negligible (Loeb
353: et al. 2005), recent analysis suggests that it is lower than the
354: radial component (vdMG08) and its inclusion would only have a weak
355: effect on the results reported here. We also ignore any diffuse
356: intergalactic mass in between the MW and M31, although future modeling
357: might take the related uncertainty into consideration (Cox \& Loeb
358: 2007). To account for the changing separation between the two
359: galaxies, we used the standard radial dynamics model (BT87).
360:
361: We find that M31 has a small but non-negligible effect on the trajectory of
362: the LMC. Based on the current position of the LMC (see Figures
363: \ref{fig:2dpathlg} and \ref{fig:2dpath}), the addition of M31 pulls the LMC
364: away from the Galactic center and towards the LG center of mass. Figure
365: \ref{fig:M31} compares the distance of the LMC from the Galactic (MW)
366: center with (blue line) and without (light blue line) the gravitational
367: influence of M31, assuming $\vcirc=251~\kms$ for the MW. Our figures keep
368: the MW at the center of the coordinate system (corresponding to an
369: accelerated frame of reference). ~ Without M31, the LMC is more tightly
370: bound to the MW; in the P08(251\kms) case, the orbital period of the LMC is
371: 5 Gyr, about 1.5 Gyr shorter than if M31 is included.
372:
373: \begin{figure}
374: \centering \includegraphics[width=3in]{M31.eps} \label{fig:251M31}
375: \caption{Distance of the LMC from the center of the MW as a function of
376: time, with (darker line) and without (lighter line) the gravitational
377: influence of M31, assuming $\vcirc=251~\kms$.}
378: \label{fig:M31}
379: \end{figure}
380:
381:
382: %Discussion
383: \section{Discussion}
384: \label{sec:disc}
385:
386: We have found that the $\sim 14\pm 6\%$ increase in the MW circular
387: velocity, relative to the IAU standard of $220~\kms$, allows the LMC to be
388: gravitationally bound to the MW. Despite its relatively high proper motion
389: (K06; P08), the orbit of the LMC remains confined within the virial radius
390: of the MW.
391:
392: Since the MW and M31 galaxies account for most of the mass in the LG,
393: the LG itself is not much more spatially extended than the two are
394: individually, having an estimated zero energy surface at a radius of
395: $\sim0.9~\Mpc$~(Karachentsev et al. 2008). If the LMC had followed
396: the path dictated by the P08(220~\kms) parameters in Table 2, it would
397: have originated from a distance of $\ga 1.5$ \Mpc~ away from the MW
398: center (see Figure \ref{fig:2dpathlg}). In comparison, if we admit
399: the P08(251~\kms) parameters, then the LMC originated roughly at the
400: virial radius of the MW halo and well within the boundaries of the LG.
401: The path suggested by P08(236~\kms) puts the LMC origin outside the LG
402: but closer than the P08(220~\kms) case. If the
403: P08(265~\kms) model is to be believed, the LMC is on its third pass by
404: the MW center and also originated on the edge of the MW halo. The
405: Galactocentric distance on which this result is based
406: ($\rsun=9.0$~kpc) is 1--$\sigma$ above the most recent estimate
407: (8.4\plm0.5 \kpc; see GGE08), so it is not excluded.
408:
409: We note that during the long time-scale between perigee passes
410: ($\sim6$ Gyr, see Fig. \ref{fig:distance}), the MW halo mass could
411: evolve by tens of percent (Diemand, Kuhlen \& Madau 2007). Future
412: studies might use cosmological simulations to incorporate the
413: evolution of both the host (MW-like) galaxy and its most massive
414: (LMC-like) satellite to get a statistical understanding of their
415: likely past interaction. Our most likely model has the LMC forming at
416: roughly the MW virial radius, as expected from a hierarchical
417: formation of the MW halo (Springel et al. 2008, Figs. 11 \& 12).
418: Also, all our quoted uncertainty for the LMC orbit stem from the
419: uncertainty in \rsun (and therefore \vcirc). Errors in the proper
420: motion were not taken into account. The K06 measurements, for
421: example, are slightly over 1--$\sigma$ off from the P08 measurements
422: of the LMC proper motion. The difference between these two cases (as
423: seen in Figure \ref{fig:distance2}) is drastic -- in one case the LMC
424: is clearly bound to the MW (P08), and in the other it is not (K06). A
425: 1--$\sigma$ shift in the other direction, however, would alter the
426: path of the LMC into an even tighter orbit, similar to the P08(265
427: \kms) model.
428:
429: With the value of the distance between the Sun and the Galactic center at
430: its IAU value (GGE08, KLB86), $\sim$8.5$\plm.5~\kpc$, the total mass of the
431: MW Galaxy increases by a factor of 1.23--1.75 relative to the values
432: inferred for the lower distance of 8\plm.5 \kpc ~(Reid 1993). B07 correctly
433: rules out a larger mass for the MW but only considers the low mass
434: ($1\times10^{12}\msun$) and the high mass ($2\times10^{12}\msun$) models of
435: Klypin et al. (2002) which bracket our preferred range. Xue et al. (2008)
436: describe the uncertainties of the prior assumption that the galactic \vcirc~
437: is 220 \kms. Table \ref{tab:MW} provides the corresponding range of masses
438: for the MW halo, all calculated from observational data, fit either to a
439: flat rotation curve or an NFW profile, such as the one we have adopted in
440: this work.
441:
442: \begin{table}
443: \caption{Milky Way Halo Mass in Recent Studies}
444: \label{tab:MW}
445: \begin{tabular}{@{}lcc}
446: \hline
447: Author & Mass & Model \\
448: ~ & ($10^{12}\msun$) & ~ \\
449: \hline
450: \hline
451: Wilkinson \& Evans (1999)& $1.9^{+3.6}_{-1.7}$ & FRC$^{1}$ \\
452: Sakamoto, Chiba \& Beers (2003) & $2.5^{+0.5}_{-1.0}$ & FRC \\
453: Sakamoto, Chiba \& Beers ({\it w/o} Leo I) & $1.8^{+.04}_{-0.7}$ & FRC \\
454: Smith et al. (2007) & $1.42^{+1.14}_{-0.54}$ & NFW \\
455: Xue et al. (2008) & $0.79\plm0.15$ - & NFW\\
456: ~ & ~~~$1.18\pm0.28$ & \\
457: Li \& White (2008)& $2.43$ & N-Body$^{2}$\\
458: \hline
459: \end{tabular}
460: $^{1}$FRC denotes a Flat Rotation Curve, as in an isothermal sphere.
461: These mass calculations have cutoffs of $\sim 50~\kpc$.
462: $^{2}$e.g. the Millennium
463: simulation. Here the limiting radius is the virial radius,
464: similar to the NFW calculation.
465: \end{table}
466:
467: The $\sim 50 \%$ increase in mass (from $1\times10^{12}~\msun$ to
468: $1.485\times10^{12}~\msun$) and the $\sim 6\%$ decrease in the
469: velocity of the LMC (P08(220~\kms) to P08(251~\kms)) have a comparable
470: influence on making LMC orbit bound to the MW. The combined effect of
471: these changes is not equivalent to a change in the MW mass, as
472: considered by B07. The K06(251~\kms) and P08(220~\kms) lines in
473: Figures \ref{fig:distance2} and \ref{fig:distance} correspond to
474: roughly the same LMC velocity (as derived from the IAU standard with
475: the P08 proper motion) but a different MW mass. The higher mass of
476: the MW contributes about half of the overall difference between these
477: cases. This parallels the comparison made in B07 between the
478: K06(220~\kms) and the K06(220~\kms)$+4\sigma$ numbers in their {\it
479: Fiducial} and {\it High Mass} Models, except that our findings do not
480: require a $4-\sigma$ deviation from the measured LMC velocity or a
481: $2-\sigma$ deviation from the mass of the MW in order to make the LMC
482: orbit bound to the MW.
483:
484: The previous suggestion (B07) of possibly disqualifying the LMC and
485: SMC as MW satellites has undesirable implications for the satellites
486: in the MW halo. M31 has 18 satellites, 5 of which are gas rich,
487: whereas the MW, if the LMC and SMC are no longer bound to it, has only
488: 12 bound satellites, 2 of which are gas rich (Karachentsev 2005,
489: vdMG08). M31's satellites range in mass from 0.58 to 500
490: $\times10^{8}\msun$, whereas the remaining MW satellites are in the
491: range of 0.1--1$\times10^{8}\msun$ (Mateo 1998). Excluding the LMC
492: and SMC as satellites of the MW appears unnatural, as there is no
493: reason for the two comparably sized galaxies to have a large disparity
494: in the abundance of massive satellites. Moreover, the chance of
495: finding massive galaxies like the LMC and the SMC so close to the MW
496: center requires a special coincidence if they are unbound to the MW,
497: since they would have spent most of their orbital time far away from
498: the MW in that case. Yet, no similar galaxies are known to exist in
499: the much larger volume between M31 and the MW. Although these
500: statistical arguments are not definitive, they support indirectly the
501: higher updated values of \vcirc (RB04) and \rsun (GGE08) for the MW.
502:
503: No work on the Magellanic Clouds would be complete without a mention
504: of the Magellanic Stream (MS). There is $<2\%$ change in the
505: trajectory over the length of the MS (100 degrees) between the
506: P08(220\kms) and the P08(251\kms) models, both of which are well
507: within the error margins in Figure 8 of B07. We reiterate the
508: concerns presented in B07 that neither tidal stripping nor ram
509: pressure can fully explain the orientation of the Stream.
510:
511: \noindent
512: {\bf Acknowledgments.} We thank Gurtina Besla and Mark Reid for useful
513: discussions. This work is supported in part by NASA grant NNX08AL43G,
514: by FQXi, and by Harvard University and Smithsonian Astrophysical
515: Observatory funds.
516:
517:
518: %Bibliography
519: \begin{thebibliography}{}
520:
521: \bibitem[Bekki (2008)]{arXiv:0807.1956v1}
522: Bekki, K. \ 2008 preprint (astro-ph/0807.1956)
523:
524: \bibitem[Bekki \& Chiba (2005)]{2005MNRAS.356..680B}
525: Bekki K., Chiba M., \ 2005 \mnras, 356, 680
526:
527: \bibitem[Besla et al. (2007)]{2007ApJ...668..949B} Besla, G. ,
528: Kallivayalil N., Hernquist L., Robertson B., Cox T.~J., van der Marel
529: R.~P., \& Alcock C., \ 2007, \apj, 668, 949 (B07)
530:
531: \bibitem[Binney \& Tremaine (1987)]{BT87} Binney J., \& Tremaine S. \
532: 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton University Press), pp. 605-607 (BT87)
533:
534: \bibitem[Chandrasekhar (1943)]{1943ApJ....97..255C}
535: Chandrasekhar S., \ 1943, \apj, 97, 255
536:
537: \bibitem[Connors et al. (2006)]{2006MNRAS.371..108C}
538: Connors, T.~W., Kawata, D., \& Gibson, B.~K., \ 2006, \mnras, 371, 108
539:
540: \bibitem[Cox \& Loeb (2008)]{2008MNRAS.386..461C} Cox T.~J., \& Loeb A.,
541: \ 2008, \mnras, 386, 461
542:
543: \bibitem[Diemand et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...667..859D} Diemand, J., Kuhlen,
544: M., \& Madau, P.\ 2007, \apj, 667, 859
545:
546: \bibitem[Gardiner \& Noguchi (1996)]{1996MNRAS.278..191G} Gardiner L.~T.,
547: \& Noguchi M., \ 1996, \mnras, 278, 191
548:
549: \bibitem[Gardiner et al. (1994)]{1994MNRAS.266..567G} Gardiner L.~T.,
550: Sawa T., \& Fujimoto M., \ 1994 \mnras, 266, 567
551:
552: \bibitem[Ghez et al. (2008)]{2008IAUS..248...52G} Ghez A.~M.,
553: et al. \ 2008, ApJ, accepted; arXiv:0808.2870
554:
555: \bibitem[Gillensen et al. (2008)]{GGE08} Gillensen S., Genzel R., \&
556: Eisenhouer F., \ 2008, private communication (GGE08)
557:
558: \bibitem[Hashimoto et al. (2003)]{2003ApJ...582..196H}
559: Hashimoto, Y., Funato, Y. \& Makino, J., \ 2003, \apj, 582, 196
560:
561: \bibitem[Kallivayalil et al. (2006)]{2006ApJ...638..772K} Kallivayalil N.,
562: van der Marel R.~P., Alcock C., Axelrod T., Cook K.~H., Drake A.~J.,
563: \& Geha M., \ 2006, \apj, 368, 772 (K06)
564:
565: \bibitem[Karachentsev (2005)]{2005AJ....129..178K}
566: Karachentsev I.~D. \ 2005, \aj, 129, 178 (K05)
567:
568: \bibitem[Karachentsev et al. (2008)]{arXiv:0710.0520v1} Karachentsev
569: I.~G., Karachentsev V., Huchtmeier W., Makarov D., Kaisin S., \&
570: Sharina, M., \ 2008, Galaxies in the Local Volume (Springer) (K08)
571:
572: \bibitem[Kerr \& Lynden-Bell (1986)]{1986MNRAS.221.1023K} Kerr F.~J., \&
573: Lynden-Bell D., \ 1986, \mnras, 221, 1023 (KLB86)
574:
575: \bibitem[Klypin et al. (2002)]{2002ApJ...573..597K} Klypin A., Zhao H, \&
576: Somerville R.~S., \ 2002, \apj, 573, 597 (KZS02)
577:
578: \bibitem[Komatsu et al. (2008)]{2008arXiv0803.0547K}
579: Komatsu E., et al., \ 2008, preprint (astro-ph/0803.0547)
580:
581: \bibitem[Li \& White(2008)]{2008MNRAS.384.1459L} Li Y.-S., \& White
582: S.~D.~M.\ 2008, \mnras, 384, 1459
583:
584: \bibitem[Lin et al. (1995)]{1995ApJ...439..652J}
585: Lin D.~N.,~C., Jones B.~F., \& Klemola A.~R., \ 1995, \apj, 439, 652
586:
587: \bibitem[Lin \& Lynden-Bell (1982)]{1982MNRAS.198..707L}
588: Lin, D.~N.~ C., \& Lynden-Bell, D., \ 1982, \mnras, 198, 707
589:
590: \bibitem[Loeb et al. (2005)]{2005ApJ...633..894L} Loeb, A., Reid, M.~J.,
591: Brunthaler, A., Falcke, H., \ 2005, \apj, 633, 894
592:
593: \bibitem[Mastropietro et al. (2005)]{2005MNRAS.363..509M}
594: Mastropietro, C., Moore, B., Mayer, L., Wadsley, J., \& Stadel, J.,
595: \ 2005, \mnras, 363, 509
596:
597: \bibitem[McConnachie et al. (2005)]{2005MNRAS.356..979M}
598: McConnachie, A.~W. et al., \ 2005, \mnras, 356, 979
599:
600: \bibitem[Murai \& Fujimoto (1980)]{1980PASJ...32..581M} Murai, T., \&
601: Fujimoto, M., \ 1980, PASJ, 32, 581
602:
603: \bibitem[Navarro et al. (1996)]{1996ApJ...462..563N} Navarro, J.~F., Frenk,
604: C.~S., \& White, S.~D.~M., \ 1996, \apj, 462, 563 (NFW96)
605:
606: \bibitem[Piatek et al. (2008)]{2008AJ....135.1024P} Piatek, S., Pryor, C.,
607: \& Olszewski, E., \ 2008, \aj, 135, 1024 (P08)
608:
609: \bibitem[Reid (1993)]{1993ARA&A..31..345R}
610: Reid, M.~J., \ 1993, ARA\&A, 31, 345
611:
612: \bibitem[Reid \& Brunthaler (2004)]{2004ApJ...616..872R} Reid, M.~J., \&
613: Brunthaler, A., \ 2004, \apj, 616, 872 (RB04)
614:
615: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al. (2003)]{2003A&A...397..899S}
616: Sakamoto, T., Chiba, M., \& Beers, T.~C., \ 2003 A\&A, 397, 899S
617:
618: \bibitem[Smith et al. (2008)]{2007MNRAS.379..755S}
619: Smith, M. et al., \ 2007 MNRAS, 379, 755
620:
621: \bibitem[Springel et al. (2008)]{arXiv:0809.0898}
622: Springel, V. et al., \ 2008, MNRAS, submitted (astro-ph/0809.0898)
623:
624: \bibitem[Uemura et al. (2000)]{2000PASJ...52..143U}
625: Uemura, M., Ohashi, H., Hayakawa, T., Ishida, E., Kato, T. \& Hirata, R.,
626: \ 2000, \pasj, 52, 143
627:
628: \bibitem[van der Marel et al. (2002)]{2002AJ....124.2639V}
629: van der Marel, R.~P., Alves, D.~R., Hardy, E.,
630: \& Suntzeff, N.~B., \ 2002, \aj, 124, 2639 (vdM02)
631:
632: \bibitem[van der Marel \& Guhathakurta (2008)]{2008ApJ...678..187V}
633: van der Marel, R.~P., \& Guhathakurta, P., \ 2008, \apj, 678, 187 (vdMG08)
634:
635: \bibitem[Wilkinson \& Evans (1999)]{1999MNRAS.310..645W}
636: Wilkinson, M.~I., \& Evans, N.,~W., \ 1999, \mnras, 310, 645
637:
638: \bibitem[Wu et al. (2008)]{arXiv:0803.0977v1}
639: Wu, X., Famaey, B., Gentile, G., Perets, H., \& Zhao H. \ 2008,
640: preprint (astro-ph/0803.0977v1)
641:
642: \bibitem[Xue at al. (2008)]{arXiv:0801.1232v5} Xue, X. et al., \ 2008,
643: preprint (astro-ph/0801.1232v5)
644:
645: \end{thebibliography}
646:
647: \label{lastpage}
648: \end{document}
649: