What's up in the Milky Way? The orientation of the disc relative to the triaxial halo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Models of the Sagittarius stream have consistently found that the Milky Way disc is oriented such that its short axis is along the intermediate axis of the triaxial dark matter halo. We attempt to build models of disc galaxies in such an ‘intermediate-axis orientation’. We do this with three models. In the first two cases we simply rigidly grow a disc in a triaxial halo such that the disc ends up perpendicular to the global intermediate axis. We also attempt to coax a disc to form in an intermediate-axis orientation by producing a gas+dark matter triaxial system with gas angular momentum about the intermediate axis. In all cases we fail to produce systems which remain with stellar angular momentum aligned with the halo's intermediate axis, even when the disc's potential flattens the inner halo such that the disc is everywhere perpendicular to the halo's local minor axis. For one of these unstable simulations we show that the potential is even rounder than the models of the Milky Way potential in the region probed by the Sagittarius stream. We conclude that the Milky Way's disc is very unlikely to be in an intermediate-axis orientation. However we find that a disc can persist off one of the principal planes of the potential. We propose that the disc of the Milky Way must be tilted relative to the principal axes of the dark matter halo. Direct confirmation of this prediction would constitute a critical test of Modified Newtonian Dynamics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".