Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Another MOND prediction confirmed.

  1. Apr 28, 2005 #1

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504051

    But, in the other direction we have:

    http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0503104

    This involves the so called "dark galaxy" and contains the caveat that the measurements are not yet considered definitive.

    And, for all around MOND/TeVeS junkies, we have one of the first really serious critiques of Bekenstein's proposed relativistic modified newtonian dynamics theory called TeVeS:

    http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0502122

    I'd also welcome comments on this article:

    http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412415

    which has something of a cranky alert feeling to it. This probably has something to do with the fact that Roscoe is a co-author of a paper with Arp:

    http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501090

     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 29, 2005 #2

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    More Arp pseudo-science. I assume I will be asked why I think it's a cowpie.
     
  4. Apr 29, 2005 #3

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why do you think it's cowpie, Chronos?
     
  5. Apr 29, 2005 #4

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Interesting approach, but I think it's too literally Machian, and suffers from the lack of a "nuts and bolts" mechanism. Note: In my ZPE model, radiational anisotopies are expected, due to our motion through the vacuum fields. I believe that these motions are the cause of the symmetrical anisotropies that are seen in the WMAP data. When WMAP2 is released, we will know if this concept is correct, or it least we will know if it is flatly falsified.
     
  6. May 1, 2005 #5

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Surely you jest. Perhaps because of stunning assertions like:

    For over 35 years now the evidence has been building for a set of numerically defined peaks in the distribution of quasar redshifts - the so-called Karlsson peaks. But the existence of the Karlsson peaks has generally not been acknowledged - primarily because of the serious implications for canonical cosmology.

    I could not have said it better: the so-called Karlsson peaks. Indeed. No doubt that has serious implications for canonical cosmology.:rofl:

    And this is priceless:

    The purpose of the present paper is not to address their criticism of past evidence (that has been done by Napier and Burbidge, 2003, who show the past evidence is indeed valid) - but rather to show that, also contrary to the Hawkins et al. claim, a simple qualitative analysis of the new data plus a detailed analysis of a few sample fields, reveals that quasar periodicity is indeed strongly present.
     
  7. May 2, 2005 #6

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Rather than clutter up a new thread, I'll note some observations from an exceptionally long, for Science News, April 23, 2005 Science News Article on Dark Matter: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050423/bob9.asp

    From the article:

    Such distinctions fall naturally out of MOND theory. And, of course, the whole point of dark matter is to have to avoid inventing a new fundamental force, and another study mentioned in the article casts doubt on the collision theory. So, the means for resolving the discrepency between theory and reality are limited.

    As the article on UCDs cited above explains, that isn't a problem for MOND.

    In short, even though the Science News article doesn't question for a moment the fundamental premise of dark matter theory, it does point out significant collisions between dark matter theory and observed reality.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2005
  8. May 2, 2005 #7
    being a newbie to your forums, and especially not having any letters after my name, I tread carefully here. This theory seems to beg the age old question of the tree falling in the forest, as far as I can tell. What ramifications does this have toward MOND, if proved or disproved?
     
  9. May 2, 2005 #8

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    FWIW, the letters I have next to my name (J.D. and Esq.) don't rate much in these forums either.

    The basic issues are these:

    (1) The model of general relativity applied to only luminous matter fails dismally. It can't even explain the dynamics of the Milky Way, or for that matter, most galaxies and galactic clusters and large scale structure which we observe.

    (2) It follows that general relativity is wrong, or that there is more stuff than luminous matter out there, or both.

    (3) The leading theory arguing that general relativity is wrong is called MOND, although it has advanced cousins (with names like TeVeS) and theoretical cousins (like Conformal Gravity). The leading theory arguing that there is invisible stuff is the Lambda Cold Dark Matter theory. It also has cousins (like Warm Dark Matter).

    (4) In the "easy cases" like the dynamics of plain vanilla spiral galaxies, the two theories tend to predict the same thing. Indeed, finding predictions that differ between CDM and MOND is sometimes a challenge. But, knowing which is right does help in dealing with the "hard cases".

    (5) If the main CDM theory is correct, then we really need to discover what 90% of the matter in the universe is made out of. The leading candidates are WIMPs (often assumed to be axions or neutralinos, two types of particles not in the Standard Model of Particle Physics). We also need to figure out why dark matter distributes itself in the manner in which it does.

    (6) If the underdog MOND theory is correct, then mainstream cosmologists have egg on their face because they widely stated that there was lots of dark matter out there that doesn't exist. (MOND basically argues that very weak gravitational fields are stronger than predicted by Newtonian gravity and GR which are virtually identical in these situations, except for lensing).

    (7) MOND has the virtue of being a more tightly constrained theory. It has fewer free parameters. Thus, it usually makes more definitive predictions. For example, MOND says that UCD galaxies are going to have no dark matter effects, while low surface brightness galaxies will have strong dark matter like effects. In contrast, CDM theory requires a whole lot of subtheories to figure out what sort of dark matter halo can be expected from a particular type of galaxy or galactic superstructure.

    (8) MOND could also shed light on quantum gravity. One possible reason that it is hard to merge GR and quantum physics is that the GR equations we are trying to merge into quantum physics are wrong, and that MOND is a manifestation of subtle differences between a quatum physical version of gravity and a classical theory of gravity in GR.

    Of course, like almost all questions in astronomy, practicality is a secondary consideration. Nobody is going on transgalactic space flights anytime soon (well, except for Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect) and the predictions of cosmology about the beginning and end of the universe are billions of years in the past and future. Moreover, even if we perfectly understood quantum gravity, there is no good reason to believe that we could apply that knowledge in any useful way (other than making better star charts).
     
  10. May 2, 2005 #9
    Here is a nice paper describing the descrepancy between observed dynamical masses and MOND masses in clusters of galaxies:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0505017

    New constraints on MOND from galaxy clusters
    Authors: Etienne Pointecouteau, Joseph Silk
    Comments: 5 pages, 1 figure, MNRAS submitted

    We revisit the application of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) to galaxy clusters. We confront the high quality X-ray data for eight clusters of galaxies observed by the XMM-Newton satellite with the predictions of MOND. We obtain ratios of the Newtonian dynamical mass to the MOND mass of M_d/M_m=1.09+/-0.08 at r~0.1 R_vir increasing to M_d/M_m=1.57+/-0.24 in the outer parts (i.e r~0.5 R_vir), in the concordance cosmological model. We confirm that the MOND paradigm lowers the discrepancy between the binding mass with the baryonic mass in clusters to a factor of ~1.6 at about half the virial radius, that as pointed out by Sanders (2003), necessitates a component of dark baryons or neutrinos in the cluster core. However application of the new data requires a much larger discrepancy of ~4.5 (increasing to 5.1 when only hot systems are considered, i.e kT>3.5keV) at large radii that MOND cannot explain without introducing further ad hoc assumptions.
     
  11. May 2, 2005 #10

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The Pointecouteau and SIlk paper and the study of galactic clusters in the Science News article make clear that neither conventional CDM theory, nor MOND has the whole picture in galactic clusters.

    It was noted early on that "naiive MOND", i.e. the basic point source formula with gravity strengthened beyond a critical graviational field strength doesn't work in less symmetric situations (as it leads to non-conservation of energy, etc.). Given that galaxies apparently do have fairly distinct gravitational signatures distinct from the Newtonian visible matter signatures within clusters, it seems to me that this is likely to be a case where the full blown GR generalized (or at least Lorenzian) formulation is necessary to get a good result.
     
  12. May 3, 2005 #11

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Read the Silk paper some more. It does take into account TeVeS to some extent. Among the interesting finding are: (1) discrepencies appear to be higher where cluster temperatures are higher, (2) discrepency values vary quite a bit, (3) there are no underestimates of the amount of matter.

    The big question from the mind of a MOND theorist for some time has been: Why should galactic clusters behave differently when everything else in the universe seems to fit the theory? What is special about clusters?

    Sanders took a stab at it and guessed that there was a surplus of massive neutrinos. Others have guessed that there is a non-linear mass relationship (cube rootish) but that doesn't seem to fit results at other scales. Lack of spherical symmetry within a cluster is another possible factor.

    The notion that hot clusters should have more of a discrepency than cold ones is suggestive of the idea of the energy in the system gravitating in addition to the matter. Still, it is a basically unanswered question.
     
  13. May 3, 2005 #12

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    We should have some kind of answer [which might be none of the above] by the end of this decade. If there is another threshold of particle energies, you would think it will surely show up when the LHC goes on line.
     
  14. May 4, 2005 #13

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Regarding particle energy thresholds: The Standard Model assumes that there is a particle - the Higgs Boson - that mediates gravitational forces, and it was expected to reside at energies of 80 GeV. LEP failed to detect it, even at 115 GeV. The faithful simply shrug and say "the Higgs Boson exists at a higher energy than we expected and the LHC will find it".

    I believe that negative results are just as critical to our understanding of physics as positive results - that is the nature of experimentation. This real value can only be realized, however, if theorists are willing to accept the results of observation. If the theorists are so in love with their theories that they will constantly tweak and massage them to conform with discordant observations, we will end up with ugly, kludged, Gordian-knot explanations of our U that become more constrained and less useful with every epicycle. Sound familiar?
     
  15. May 4, 2005 #14

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The LHC might very well turn up new particles -- although I wouldn't put good money on it. Certainly, current theory predicts that it could prove the existence of a Higgs boson, an axion or a neutralino, all of which are prime WIMP/CDM candidates. Of course, turbo-1 is entirely correct when he notes that if LHC doesn't find anything that the theorists will go back to the drawing board and figure out why the predicted mass of those candidates was too low.

    But, as the Science News article notes, the bigger problem is that DM theory does as poor of job of explaining why apparent DM is distributed in the manner that it is in galactic clusters, as MOND does at explaining why its theory doesn't make all the missing mass go away.
     
  16. May 4, 2005 #15
    No, dark matter fits observations on a cluster scale very well. MOND doesn't. Dynamical temperatures derived assuming dark matter agree very well with x-ray temperatures, as do mass estimates (from dynamics, xray observations and gravitational lensing) . Clusters seem to show a good fit to NFW dark matter profiles. This is why they are such a thorn in MONDs side.
     
  17. May 4, 2005 #16

    ohwilleke

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    See post #6 above. The third blockquote explains that experiment is inconsistent with colliding dark matter. But, in the absence of collisionful dark matter, there is no explanation for observed halo structure as noted in the first blockquote in that post.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2005
  18. May 4, 2005 #17
    Ok, so dark matter fits observations on a cluster scale, but not as well on a galactic scale. You are talking about the smaller scale halos residing within the cluster dark matter halo. I ws talking about the cluster dark matter halo.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Another MOND prediction confirmed.
  1. MOND-related formula (Replies: 1)

  2. MOND vs DM (Replies: 14)

  3. Is MOND necessary? (Replies: 2)

Loading...