Can MOND be ruled out at laboratory scale?

In summary: If MOND only applies for small absolute accelerations, that would of course make it difficult to observe (or equally refute) MOND effects in a laboratory, but as I previously mentioned it also seems to raise questions about why a star as a whole should be affected by it at all, given that all of its component particles are experiencing local gravitational effects far exceeding the MOND threshold.
  • #1
Jonathan Scott
Gold Member
2,340
1,149
The empirical MOND explanation of galactic rotation curves involves switching over in the low acceleration regime from the Newtonian acceleration Gm/r^2 to the MOND acceleration term sqrt(Gm a_0)/r.

This is normally achieved using an "interpolation function" which effectively switches off one term and switches on the other when the Newtonian acceleration decreases past the MOND acceleration parameter a_0.

MOND is of course normally applied only on the scale of galaxies. However, if we consider a Cavendish-style laboratory experiment involving a mass of 1kg at a distance of 1m, the resulting acceleration Gm/r^2 = 6.67e-11 ms^-2 is less than the MOND acceleration parameter a_0 = 1.2e-10 ms^-2, so the MOND effect should be significant.

As the mass is increased and the distance is decreased, making the acceleration more easily measurable, the acceleration moves from the MOND regime into the Newtonian regime, but one would still expect a partial MOND acceleration effect if MOND were really related to acceleration thresholds. Such an acceleration would be proportional to sqrt(m)/r instead of the usual m/r^2.

Have such effects been ruled out by laboratory experiments? If so, this would prove that MOND could not work without taking into account additional physical effects in addition to the gravitational acceleration; for example, it might depend only on the total gravitational acceleration relative to some background space.

Another oddity with the MOND idea is that particles of a star experience accelerations orders of magnitude higher than the overall acceleration of the star, which might appear to mean that they should not exhibit the MOND acceleration. I think that if the MOND extrapolation function is chosen to simply give a linear sum of the MOND and Newtonian accelerations, this theoretical problem does not arise, although this would then also rule out the "total gravitational acceleration" explanation for why MOND does not affect laboratory experiments. If my maths is correct, the extrapolation function which achieves this effect is as follows:

mu(x) = (sqrt(1+1/4x) - sqrt(1/4x))^2
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
if you haven't already seen it you might be interested in last year's paper by Bekenstein and Magueijo about the possibility of testing MOND (probably they meant the Bekenstein relativistic version, primarily) in the context of the solar system

there is only one paper in arxiv that has both those two author names, so it is easy to find by the arxiv search
 
  • #3
marcus said:
if you haven't already seen it you might be interested in last year's paper by Bekenstein and Magueijo about the possibility of testing MOND (probably they meant the Bekenstein relativistic version, primarily) in the context of the solar system

there is only one paper in arxiv that has both those two author names, so it is easy to find by the arxiv search

Thanks very much for the reference. That paper makes it clear that the authors are assuming that MOND takes effect only when the gradient of the total Newtonian potential is less than the critical acceleration. This has the interesting side-effect of potentially creating "islands" of MOND-like behaviour where potential gradients cancel within the solar system, or between the solar system and the galactic background, giving an "absolute" acceleration relative to some background space of less than the critical value. That seems a nice theoretical idea, but I don't find it very plausible as physics.

If MOND only applies for small absolute accelerations, that would of course make it difficult to observe (or equally refute) MOND effects in a laboratory, but as I previously mentioned it also seems to raise questions about why a star as a whole should be affected by it at all, given that all of its component particles are experiencing local gravitational effects far exceeding the MOND threshold.

I'm currently interested in whether it's possible to use laboratory results to rule out the alternative of a simpler MOND-like acceleration effect which simply effectively adds sqrt(Gma_0)/r to everywhere to the Newtonian acceleration Gm/r^2. I suspect this may well be already known to be the case, and this would explain why these authors are assuming that MOND only relates to the total gradient. However, so far when I've searched for information about experiments to look for inverse square law deviations in the laboratory environment, they seem to be looking for accelerations which vary with 1/r^n where n > 2, but I'm interested in n < 2.

Of course, if laboratory experiments have not yet been sufficiently accurate to rule out local MOND effects, then that might relate to the well-known difficulties in getting a consistent value of G in different laboratory experiments. However, my guess is that there's already some results out there that can rule out this explanation.
 
  • #4
Jonathan Scott said:
...That paper makes it clear that the authors are assuming that MOND takes effect only when the gradient of the total Newtonian potential is less than the critical acceleration. ...

I think you have got it right. And I would consider Bekenstein (one of the two authors) to be the chief authority on MOND at the present time.
His "relativistic MOND" (also called TeVeS) has taken over a lot of the attention that used to be around Moti Milgrom 1980s nonrelativistic version.

So basically my attitude is whatever Jacob Bekenstein says MOND is, that is what it is, and if he says it depends on the total potential, then it does.

the alternative (that it depends on the effect of a single particle in the sun and that you add up all these effects) does not make sense to me. as I see it, there is one graviational field (which Bekenstein says consists of tensor, vector, and scalar parts) that exhibits MOND effects.

it does not make sense to me to consider that a single proton in the sun could make a field that would exhibit MOND effects in how it influences the earth. in that case essentially all the gravity we experience would be exhibiting obvious mond effects----which it doesnt
 
  • #5
marcus said:
It does not make sense to me to consider that a single proton in the sun could make a field that would exhibit MOND effects in how it influences the earth. in that case essentially all the gravity we experience would be exhibiting obvious mond effects----which it doesnt

I'm not suggesting there's a problem with the way particles create the MOND field.

My point (which I believe is a well known one) is that if it's the total potential which creates the field, it is not clear why stars should be affected by the MOND acceleration at all, as a star is not a point particle but rather a collection of particles which are all falling within the star's own gravitational field and being pushed back up by thermal energy.

Even if MOND effects do apply locally, they are not very large, and although I believe they should be detectable, I'm not sure, hence this thread.
 
  • #6
MOND does not appear to 'work' within out solar system. That imparts it disturbingly non-local consequences. Detecting gravitational effects in the laboratory at small scales is a different matter. It is not clear gravity even exists at short distances. It is overwhelmed by quantum effects.
 
  • #7
Published last year in Physical Review D

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602266
MOND habitats within the solar system
Jacob Bekenstein, Joao Magueijo
Phys.Rev. D73 (2006) 103513
(Submitted on 12 Feb 2006)

"MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is an interesting alternative to dark matter in extragalactic systems. We here examine the possibility that mild or even strong MOND behavior may become evident well inside the solar system, in particular near saddle points of the total gravitational potential. Whereas in Newtonian theory tidal stresses are finite at saddle points, they are expected to diverge in MOND, and to remain distinctly large inside a sizeable oblate ellipsoid around the saddle point. We work out the MOND effects using the nonrelativistic limit of the TeVeS theory, both in the perturbative nearly Newtonian regime and in the deep MOND regime. While strong MOND behavior would be a spectacular 'backyard' vindication of the theory, pinpointing the MOND-bubbles in the setting of the realistic solar system may be difficult. Space missions, such as the LISA Pathfinder, equipped with sensitive accelerometers, may be able to explore the larger perturbative region."
 
  • #8
MOND theory is so intersesting as well. First of all, the important point is the total garavitational acceleration, what i mean is that, we can not test MOND theor on Earth, the gravitational acceleration between Pluto and Mercury is higher than a0.Secondly, we don't see any dark matter affect if the total gravitational acceleration is less than a0 for any particular astronomical systems (this one is so interesting). Finally, there is sth with a0, that is a0=cH/6 (c:spped of light, H:Hubble constant).From this, we know that H is not actually a constant, it chances over time, that means the vaue of a0 should change over time, a0 should have higer value in the early universe-at least during infilation. Finally, I want to say that MONd theory is a ad hoc way, yet this theory predicted excistance of LSB-low surface brightness galaxies.
 

1. What is MOND and why is it important in the field of science?

MOND stands for Modified Newtonian Dynamics, which is a theory proposed as an alternative to the widely accepted theory of dark matter. It suggests that the laws of gravity may need to be modified in order to explain the observed rotation curves of galaxies. This theory is important because it challenges our current understanding of the universe and could potentially change our understanding of gravity.

2. How does MOND differ from the theory of dark matter?

The theory of dark matter proposes the existence of a type of invisible matter that cannot be directly detected, but its presence is inferred through its gravitational effects. MOND, on the other hand, suggests that the laws of gravity need to be modified in order to explain the observed effects without the need for dark matter.

3. Can MOND be tested at the laboratory scale?

Yes, MOND can be tested at the laboratory scale through various experiments such as testing the modified laws of gravity on small-scale systems, studying the effects of modified gravity on the motion of objects, and comparing the results with the predictions of the theory.

4. What evidence supports or refutes MOND at the laboratory scale?

There is currently no conclusive evidence that either supports or refutes MOND at the laboratory scale. Some experiments have shown results that are consistent with the predictions of MOND, while others have shown results that are more in line with the theory of dark matter. Further studies and experiments are needed to determine the validity of MOND at the laboratory scale.

5. Can MOND be ruled out completely at the laboratory scale?

It is difficult to rule out MOND completely at the laboratory scale as there is still ongoing research and debate surrounding the theory. However, if a clear and consistent pattern of results emerges that is not in line with the predictions of MOND, it could potentially be ruled out as a valid theory at the laboratory scale.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
802
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
72
Views
5K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
7
Views
747
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
15
Views
4K
Back
Top