From protogalaxy through thick and thin: Why did the Milky Way evolve in three kinematic phases?

APOGEE and Gaia data have revealed that the Milky Way's structure appears to have evolved through three distinct kinematic phases. The new analysis still awaits peer review, but it already lays out the central claim clearly.

It is relevant because cosmology operates at the edge of what current instruments can measure, where systematic errors and model assumptions are never trivial. Small discrepancies between independent measurements have historically pointed toward missing physics rather than simple calibration errors, and the ongoing tension in the Hubble constant is a live example of how a persistent disagreement between methods can reshape the theoretical landscape. Each new dataset that approaches this territory with independent systematics adds real information to a problem that has resisted easy resolution for more than a decade. The thick disk phase later transitioned to a third (and final) phase with star formation occurring in a cold, thin stellar disk. In this paper, we use a suite of FIRE-2 simulations of Milky Way-mass galaxies to demonstrate that the same three phases arise in our cosmological zoom-in simulations, and study.

In all of our galaxies, the early disordered phase occurs when the rate of cool gas ($T \leq 10^4$ K) converting into stars is low, the star formation rate is bursty, and the. The gas in the galaxy begins to spin coherently after the sloshing phase ends, followed by the spin-up of young stars.

This second, thick disk phase coincides with a period when the rate of cool gas converting into stars is highest, even though the star formation rate remains bursty in this phase. The final transition to the thin disk phase occurs when the inner circumgalactic medium virializes.

The thin disk phase is associated with a time of steady star formation and intermediate rates of cool gas converting into stars. The condition for the formation of a thick disk appears to be fairly minimal: a stable center of mass motion.

The relevance goes beyond one dataset because even small shifts in measured parameters can matter when the field is testing the limits of the standard cosmological model. The Lambda-CDM framework describes the observable universe with remarkable economy, but its success rests on two components, dark matter and dark energy, whose physical nature remains entirely unknown. Any credible measurement that tightens or loosens the constraints on those components moves the entire theoretical enterprise forward, regardless of whether the immediate result looks dramatic on its own terms.

The formation of a thin disk requires more: gas must accrete slowly enough for its angular momentum to mix and become coherent prior to joining the galaxy. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy.

Because this is still a preprint, the result should be read with genuine interest and proportionate caution. Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is a process that forces authors to respond to technical criticism from specialists who have no stake in a particular outcome. Preprints that survive that process, often with substantive revisions, emerge with a stronger evidential base than the version that first appeared. Until that stage is complete, the responsible reading keeps uncertainty explicitly visible rather than treating the claims as established findings.

The next step is to see whether the effect survives when independent surveys, different calibration strategies and tighter control of systematic uncertainties enter the picture. Programmes such as Euclid, DESI and the Rubin Observatory will deliver datasets over the next several years that cover the same parameter space with largely independent methods. If the current signal persists through those tests, its theoretical implications will become impossible to set aside. Until peer review and independent follow-up address those open questions, skepticism is not a failure of appreciation for the work; it is part of how science decides what to keep.

Source