Draft version June 28, 2023

Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX631

Constraining Dark Energy from Local Group dynamics

David Benisty,1, 2 Anne-Christine Davis,1, 2 and N. Wyn Evans2, 3
1 DAMTP, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, UK
2 Kavli Institute of Cosmology (KICC), University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, UK
3 Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, UK
arXiv:2306.14963v1 [astro-ph.CO] 26 Jun 2023

ABSTRACT
This Letter develops a method to constrain the Cosmological Constant Λ from binary galaxies,
focusing on the Milky Way and Andromeda. We provide an analytical solution to √ the two-body
problem with Λ and show that the ratio between the Keplerian period and TΛ = 2π/(c Λ) ≈ 63.2 Gyr
controls the importance of effects from the Cosmological Constant. The Andromeda-Milky Way orbit
has a period of ∼ 20 Gyr and so Dark Energy has to be taken into account. Using the current best
mass estimates of the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies, we find the Cosmological Constant value
based only on the Local Group dynamics to be lower then 5.44 times the value obtained by Planck.
With future astrometric measurements, the bound on the Cosmological Constant can be reduced to
(1.67 ± 0.79) ΛPL . Our results offer the prospects of constraints on Λ over very different scales than
previously. The Local Group provides also a completely novel platform to test alternative theories of
gravity. We illustrate this by deriving bounds on scalar-tensor theories of gravity over Megaparsec
scales.

Keywords: Local Group; Orbital motion; Dark Energy;

1. INTRODUCTION 2. ANALYTICAL SOLUTION OF THE TWO BODY

The discovery that the cosmic expansion is accelerat- PROBLEM WITH Λ
ing puzzled scientists and led them to propose the ex- The dynamics of two bodies that include the Cosmo-
istence of a mysterious “dark energy” that makes up logical Constant contribution is governed by the action
68% of the energy of the observable universe (Perlmut- (Carrera & Giulini 2006):
ter et al. 1999; Riess et al. 2019; Aghanim et al. 2020a).
1 2 GM 1
The Cosmological Constant is also important on the lo- L= v − − Λc2 r2 , (1)
cal Universe scale (e.g., Chernin et al. 2002; Kim et al. 2 r 6
2020; Karachentsev et al. 2003; Silbergleit & Chernin where r is their mutual separation, v is the total velocity,
2019). In particular, the Cosmological Constant changes Λ is the Cosmological Constant, c is the speed of light
the predicted mass of the Local Group (e.g., Partridge and G is the Newtonian Constant. We use µ as the re-
et al. 2013; Peñarrubia et al. 2014; Hartl & Strigari 2022; duced mass and M as the total mass of the system. The
Benisty 2021; Benisty et al. 2022). In this Letter, we conservation of energy and angular momentum reads
give a bound on Λ from Local Group dynamics which
is compatible with the cosmological measurements. The 1 2 l2 GM 1
ϵ= ṙ + 2 − + Λc2 r2 , l = r2 θ̇, (2)
novelty here is that this provides an exploration of dark 2 2r r 6
energy on very different scales. We extend this idea to where ϵ is the total energy per reduced mass, l is the
other Dark Energy models and show that this method total angular momentum per reduced mass, while a dot
can also constrain modified gravity theories. denotes the derivative with respect to time and θ is the
true anomaly. In order to find the relation between the
energy and the angular momentum to the eccentricity
Corresponding author: nwe22@cam.ac.uk
and the semi-major axis, we use the boundary condi-
tion that the time derivative of the separation is zero
at the extremal separations (pericentre and apocentre)
2

ṙ [a (1 ± e)] = 0. Inserting this condition into Eq. (2) where θ0 is the initial true anomaly, ∆Φ is the contri-
yields the relations: bution of the precession from Λ which coincides with
  earlier expressions (Kerr et al. 2003; Iorio 2012). The
GM 2
1 − λ 1 + e2


ϵ=− (3) two equations (9) and (11) describe a precessing ellipti-
2a 3
cal orbit, which is the full motion of the binary system
 
λ up to first order in λ.
l2 = GM a 1 − e2 1 + 1 − e2



(4)
3 Besides the orbital equations, the tangential and the
where we have introduced the dimensionless parameter: radial velocity terms are useful, since these are related
2 to the velocities we measure. Using vr = ṙ and vt =
a3 c2

TKep θ̇r = l2 /r3 relations, we get:
λ := Λ= , (5)
GM TΛ  2  
GM es λ
vr2 2 2


that quantifies the impact of the Cosmological Constant. = 1+ 8 + e c2 − e − 8ec ,
a 1 − ec 6
Here, Tkep is the Keplerian period of the system and TΛ
(13)
is a period that relates the cosmological constant: 2
 2

GM 1 − e 1 − e
r vt2 = 1+ λ , (14)
a3 2π a (1 − ec)2 3
TKep = 2π , TΛ = √ = (63.22 ± 0.16) Gyr.
GM c Λ The Timing Argument (TA) (Kahn & Woltjer 1959)
(6)
for the Local Group assumes that the Milky Way (MW)
TΛ is calculated from the measured Planck val-
and Andromeda (M31), modelled as point masses, have
ues (Aghanim et al. 2020b) and is much larger than the
been approaching each other despite cosmic expansion.
age of the Universe ∼ 13.8 Gyr. In order to solve the
Briefly after their formation (for the sake of simplicity
motion, it is useful to parameterize the separation as
the “Big Bang”), these two galaxies must have been in
r/a = 1 − e cos η, (7) the same place with zero separation (r = 0). Due to
the Hubble expansion, these two galaxies moved apart.
where e is the eccentricity, a is the semi-major axis and η After a couple of billion years, they slowed down and
is the eccentric anomaly. Putting this parameterizations then moved towards each other again as a consequence
into (2) gives a differential equation (that relates η̇ into of the gravitational pull. Many authors (Peñarrubia
η). The limit λ < 1 is readily tackled with perturbation et al. 2014; Chamberlain et al. 2023; Sawala et al. 2022)
theory. Up to the first order correction, we obtain: consider the dynamics as two body motion without
the Cosmological Constant. Here, for the first time,
p
GM/a3 dt λ
≈1− (8 − e(8c1 − c2 e + e)) , (8) we have modified these terms analytically in order to
1 − ec dη 12
track the dynamics in the presence of Λ. Using values
where c1 = cos η and c2 = cos 2η and etc. Integration for the Local Group taken from Benisty et al. (2022),
gives the solution: based on the proper motion measurements of van der
2π
 2
5e e3
 Marel et al. (2012) and Salomon et al. (2021), we find
(t − t0 ) = η − et sin η − λ s2 − s3 . (9) λ = 0.103 ± 0.002. Since λ < 1, the analytical approxi-
T 24 72
mation is good.
where s1 = sin η and s2 = sin 2η etc. with the couplings: Given the simplicity of the TA, it is now customary to
et 16 − 7e2 1 1

8 + 3e2
 include corrections motivated from the galaxy formation
=1− λ, = 1− λ . simulations to get unbiased estimates of the true Local
e 24 T TKep 12
(10) Group mass (e.g., Li & White 2008). The matter has
In order to find the relationship between the true and the been re-investigated recently by Hartl & Strigari (2022),
eccentric anomaly, we use the conserved angular momen- who used N-body and hydrodynamical simulations. The
tum from Eq. 2. Integrating the derivative of the true tendency of the TA is to overestimate the Local Group
anomaly with respect to the eccentric anomaly gives: mass by a factor of 0.63 ± 0.02 (Benisty et al. 2022).
θ − θ0 λp 3. BOUNDS ON DARK ENERGY AND MODIFIED
2π = ν̃e − 1 − e2 (3η − e sin η) , (11)
Φ 6 GRAVITY
where The Local Group mass depends on dark energy. By
r
ν̃e 1+e η Φ λp adding up the mass associated with the galaxies in
tan ≡ tan , ∆θ = −1= 1 − e2 , the Local Group, Benisty et al. (2022) estimated it is
2 1−e 2 2π 2
(12) (3.7 ± 0.5) × 1012 M⊙ (see also Sawala et al. 2022, for a
 3

1.0
TA + CB prediction
6
Data Driven Constraint 0.8

0.6
MLG (1012) M

P
0.4
4
0.2 Local Group
Future Measurements
3
0.0 Planck
100 101
2 / Pl
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
/ PL 2.00
Current measurements
1.75
Figure 1. The Timing-Argument + Cosmic Bias prediction Future measurements
for the Local Group mass vs. the Cosmological Constant Λ 1.50
value (blue). The red curve shows the latest updated mass of
1.25
(3.2 ± 1.6) 1012 M⊙ from Benisty et al. (2022).
1.00

2
very similar value). From this data-driven measurement, 0.75

we can constrain the Cosmological Constant, as well as 0.50

modifications of the Newtonian force on the scales of
Mpcs.
3.1. Cosmological Constant
Fig. 1 shows the Local Group mass for different values
of the Cosmological Constant, normalised to the Planck
value. Drawing from the distributions of separations r,
radial velocities vr and tangential velocities vt provided
in Benisty et al. (2022), we show the posterior distribu-
tion for M at each Λ. The horizontal red curves show
the latest observationally derived mass and its upper
and lower bounds. Requiring consistency, we define the
reduced χ2 as the difference with respect to the data
driven mass:
 2
2 M (r, vr , vt , Λ) − M̄LG
∆χ = , (15)
∆MLG
where M (r, vr , vt , Λ) is the predicted mass for different
values of Λ and M̄LG ± ∆MLG is the data driven one.
The lower panel of Fig. 2 shows the ∆χ2 for different
values of Λ. Using a broad prior of Λ/ΛPL = [0, 10], we
obtain the posterior on Λ to be:
Λ/ΛPL = 3.074 ± 2.369.
The upper panel of Fig. 2 compares the bound on Λ
from the Local Group dynamics with the measured value
from Planck. The value of Planck sits with 1σ of the
distribution, and the upper bound is ⪯ 5.44 ΛPL . Since
the ∆χ2 is flattish, with the broad uniform prior we get
weak constraints on the corresponding Λ value.
0.25
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
/ PL
Figure 2. Top: Bound on Λ from the Local Group dy-
namics (blue) compared to the measured value from Planck
(green). The special case (orange) is for 5% for the mass
and for the tangential velocity, with 2% for the other quan-
tities. For this case, the upper bound on Λ is predicted to be
1.67 ± 0.79 times from the Planck value. Bottom: The re-
duced ∆χ2 for the current and the future LG measurements.
This value of Λ will greatly improve in the near future
thanks to new data. In the lower panel, we now exam-
ine the effects of (i) improved proper motions, (ii) re-
duced cosmic bias uncertainty, (iii) better observational
constraints on the mass of the Local Group. From the
data summary provided in Benisty et al. (2022), the
M31-MW separation has an uncertainty of δr = 5.2%,
whilst the velocities have uncertainties δvr = 4%, δvt =
37.86%. However, improved proper motions for M31 are
likely to come quickly thanks to the ability of JWST to
obtain high precision astrometry in the Local Group,
(16) often exceeding the accuracy of Gaia (Libralato et al.
2023). The main uncertainty in the mass of the Local
Group is the contribution of its largest member, M31.
This is inferred from the kinematics of its satellite galax-
ies and so will also benefit from JWST capabilities. In
orange we show an optimistic case, taking the mass and
tangential velocity to have a 5% error and the other
4
1.0
0.8
0.6
P
0.4
0.2 Cassini
Local Group
0.0
LMC
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
log10( G/G)
Figure 3. Bound on the running Gravitational Constant
∆G/G from the Local Group dynamics versus the Cassini
bound (Bertotti et al. 2003) and Cepheids in the Large Mag-
ellanic Cloud (Desmond et al. 2021)
quantities to have a 2% error. This gives the value to
be:
Λ/ΛPL = 1.670 ± 0.794. (17)
From the posterior, we predict that it will be possible
not only to give strong upper bound on Λ which is in
order of the Planck value, but will give a detection of Λ
distribution with ∼ 40% error.
3.2. Modified gravity
Local Group dynamics in the context of modified grav-
ity has already been discussed in the literature (McLeod
& Lahav 2020; Benisty & Capozziello 2023). We are
also able to constrain modified gravity theories. We
only consider theories that are able to simultaneously
drive the acceleration of the cosmic expansion (dark en-
ergy) while remaining compatible with solar system tests
of gravity (Brax et al. 2008; Benisty et al. 2023). For
scalar tensor theories ofgravity with
 conformal coupling
(J) (E) (J)
to matter (via gµν = 1 + 2β mϕPl gµν , where gµν is
(E)
the metric in Jordan frame and gµν is the metric in the
Einstein frame) gives an effective Newtonian constant:
Geff /GN = 1 + β 2 where β is conformal strength (Brax
et al. 2019). By using the measured Planck value for Λ
and the Local Group mass, we can constraint any other
modified gravity parameter. Fig 3 shows the posterior
distribution for ∆GN /GN that reads:
∆GN /GN = 0.264 ± 0.454. (18)
Although the constraint on GN is not as strong as other
bounds, it is nonetheless interesting as it is probing de-
viations from Newtonian gravity on scales of Mpc. How-
ever, we note that in theories with screening we would
expect the constraint on GN to depend on the envi-
ronment, being more screened in dense environments
such as the solar system, see (Benisty et al. 2023) and
references therein. The Cassini bound ∆GN /GN =
(2.1 ± 2.5) × 10−5 (Bertotti et al. 2003) is on Solar
system scales. Recently, Desmond et al. (2021) have
claimed a five percent measurement of the Gravitational
constant using Cepheid variable stars in detached eclips-
ing binaries in the Large Magellanic Cloud: ∆GN /GN =
0.07+0.05
−0.04 . This result is interesting as it provides a mea-
surement of GN in another galaxy, but it is again probing
scales of astronomical units rather than Megaparsecs.
4. DISCUSSION
The Cosmological Constant has a small but measur-
able effect on the motion of the Milky Way and An-
dromeda galaxies, which are the two largest members
of the Local Group. This Letter shows that the √ ratio
between the Keplerian period and TΛ = 2π/(c Λ) ≈
63.2 Gyr controls the importance of the Cosmological
Constant in the two body problem. Since the period of
the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies is about 20 Gyr
the Cosmological Constant is a roughly 10% effect on
the motion of the galaxies. In this limit, we provide an
analytical solution for the two-body problem.
We show that a larger value of the Cosmological Con-
stant gives a larger value for the mass of the Local
Group. Based on the observationally derived measure-
ments of the Local Group mass, we give a constraint
on the Cosmological Constant only from dynamics. We
find that upper limit on the Cosmological Constant is
about ∼ 5.44 times larger then the Planck value. Antic-
ipating future gains in accuracy from JWST astrometry,
we find that the upper bound could reduce to a direct
detection of the Λ with the value: (1.67 ± 0.8) ΛP L in
the near future. This detection will be on very different
scales than that probed by the CMB.
The Local Group is also a new arena in which to test
modified theories of gravity. We obtain new bounds
on scalar-tensor theories. Although these are not as
strong as Solar system constraints, they are still the
first constraints on unprecedentedly large Megaparsec
scales. Of-course the constraint could also be density
dependent as in many popular models (Brax et al. 2008)
for example. Based on the condition for the domination
of the Cosmological Constant in a binary system, we
suggest for future research bounds on the Cosmological
Constant and alternative gravity theories derived from
binary galaxies in the Local Universe.

REFERENCES
Aghanim, N., et al. 2020a, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6,
doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910
—. 2020b, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6,
doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910
Benisty, D. 2021, Astron. Astrophys., 656,
doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142096
Benisty, D., Brax, P., & Davis, A.-C. 2023, Phys. Rev. D,
107, 064049, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.064049
Benisty, D., & Capozziello, S. 2023, Phys. Dark Univ., 39,
101175, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2023.101175
Benisty, D., Vasiliev, E., Evans, N. W., et al. 2022, ApJL,
928, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c42
Bertotti, B., Iess, L., & Tortora, P. 2003, Nature, 425, 374,
doi: 10.1038/nature01997
Brax, P., Davis, A.-C., & Kuntz, A. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99,
124034, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.124034
Brax, P., van de Bruck, C., Davis, A.-C., & Shaw, D. J.
2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 104021,
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.104021
Carrera, M., & Giulini, D. 2006.
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0602098
Chamberlain, K., Price-Whelan, A. M., Besla, G., et al.
2023, Astrophys. J., 942, 18,
doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca01f
Chernin, A. D., Santiago, D. I., & Silbergleit, A. S. 2002,
Phys. Lett. A, 294, 79,
doi: 10.1016/S0375-9601(01)00672-7
Desmond, H., Sakstein, J., & Jain, B. 2021, Phys. Rev. D,
103, 024028, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.024028
Hartl, O. V., & Strigari, L. E. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy.
Astron. Soc., 511, 6193, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac413
Iorio, L. 2012, Adv. Astron., 2012, 268647,
doi: 10.1155/2008/268647
Kahn, F. D., & Woltjer, L. 1959, ApJ, 130, 705,
doi: 10.1086/146762
5
We thank Eugene Vasiliev for useful comments and code
lines and to Jenny Wagner and Noam Libeskind for use-
ful discussions. We thank for the anonymous referee for
comments. DB gratefully acknowledges the supports of
the Blavatnik and the Rothschild fellowships, as well as
a Postdoctoral Research Associateship at the Queens’
College, University of Cambridge. DB has received par-
tial support from European COST actions CA15117 and
CA18108 and the research grants KP-06-N58/5.
Karachentsev, I. D., Chernin, A. D., & Teerikorpi, P. 2003,
Astrofiz., 46, 399.
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304250
Kerr, A. W., Hauck, J. C., & Mashhoon, B. 2003, Class.
Quant. Grav., 20, 2727,
doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/20/13/320
Kim, Y. J., Kang, J., Lee, M. G., & Jang, I. S. 2020,
Astrophys. J., 905, 104, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbd97
Li, Y.-S., & White, S. D. M. 2008, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron.
Soc., 384, 1459, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12748.x
Libralato, M., Bellini, A., van der Marel, R. P., et al. 2023,
arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.00009,
doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2303.00009
McLeod, M., & Lahav, O. 2020, JCAP, 09, 056,
doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/056
Partridge, C., Lahav, O., & Hoffman, Y. 2013, MNRAS,
436, L45, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slt109
Peñarrubia, J., Ma, Y.-Z., Walker, M. G., & McConnachie,
A. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 443, 2204,
doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu879
Perlmutter, S., et al. 1999, Astrophys. J., 517, 565,
doi: 10.1086/307221
Riess, A. G., Casertano, S., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., &
Scolnic, D. 2019, Astrophys. J., 876, 85,
doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422
Salomon, J. B., Ibata, R., Reylé, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS,
507, 2592, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2253
Sawala, T., Teeriaho, M., & Johansson, P. H. 2022.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.07250
Silbergleit, A., & Chernin, A. 2019, Kepler Problem in the
Presence of Dark Energy, and the Cosmic Local Flow,
SpringerBriefs in Physics (Springer),
doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-36752-7
van der Marel, R. P., Fardal, M., Besla, G., et al. 2012,
Astrophys. J., 753, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/8