The Milky Way is a lot less massive than we thought

Ask questions, find resources, browse the virtual shelves.
User avatar
Ann
4725 Å
Posts: 13420
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 5:33 am

The Milky Way is a lot less massive than we thought

Post by Ann » Sat Oct 14, 2023 10:11 am

https://www.universetoday.com/163448/th ... e-thought/
Universe Today wrote:

How massive is the Milky Way? It’s an easy question to ask, but a difficult one to answer. Imagine a single cell in your body trying to determine your total mass, and you get an idea of how difficult it can be. Despite the challenges, a new study has calculated an accurate mass of our galaxy, and it’s smaller than we thought.

One way to determine a galaxy’s mass is by looking at what’s known as its rotation curve. Measure the speed of stars in a galaxy versus their distance from the galactic center. The speed at which a star orbits is proportional to the amount of mass within its orbit, so from a galaxy’s rotation curve you can map the function of mass per radius and get a good idea of its total mass.
...
This new study is based on the third data release of the Gaia spacecraft.
...
The Keplerian decline allows the team to place a clear upper limit on the mass of the Milky Way. What they found was surprising. The best fit to their data placed the mass at about 200 billion solar masses, which is a fifth of previous estimates. The absolute upper mass limit for the Milky Way is 540 billion, meaning that the Milky Way is at least half as massive as we thought. Given the amount of known regular matter in the galaxy, this means the Milky Way has significantly less dark matter than we thought.
Jiao, Yongjun, et al. “Detection of the Keplerian decline in the Milky Way rotation curve.” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00048 (2023).
Color Commentator

Markus Schwarz
Science Officer
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:55 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Milky Way is a lot less massive than we thought

Post by Markus Schwarz » Fri Oct 20, 2023 8:36 am

When I read that a new finding has determined a value of only a fifth of the previous standard value, I ask myself what the group did differently or why all other previous groups were wrong. I am not an astronomer and only quickly skimmed through the arXiv paper. As far as I understand the new finding comes from a) new data from the Gaia satellite and b) (in section 5.4) that other methods assumed an equilibrium which might not exist. I am interested in reading the assessment of an astronomer on this.