Flat Velocity Curve: Newton vs MOND Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter zachzach
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    mond
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of Newton's laws to predict the flat velocity curve of stars in a circular disk galaxy. It critiques the assumption of uniform density and highlights that mass should be proportional to the square of the radius rather than the radius itself. The necessity of MOND theory is questioned, suggesting that Newtonian mechanics could suffice under certain conditions. Participants emphasize the need for accurate mathematical modeling, particularly for non-spherical galaxies, and suggest using cylindrical distributions for better results. The conversation underscores the complexities of gravitational dynamics in galactic structures.
zachzach
Messages
257
Reaction score
1
Consider a star of mass m at a distance r form the center of a circular disk galaxy. Newton's law: F = GM(r)m/(r^2) where M(r) is the amount of mass inside the radius r. If we consider a uniform galaxy then density (p) is p = M/L where L is the length = 2*pi*r. So M(r) = p*2*pi*r. Setting the force of gravity equal to centripetal force (mv^2/r) you get G*2*pi*p = v^2 or
v = [2G*pi*p]^(1/2) which is a constant. Why do you need MOND theory. To me it seems Newtonian mechanics predicts a flat velocity curve.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
zachzach said:
Consider a star of mass m at a distance r form the center of a circular disk galaxy. Newton's law: F = GM(r)m/(r^2) where M(r) is the amount of mass inside the radius r. If we consider a uniform galaxy then density (p) is p = M/L where L is the length = 2*pi*r. So M(r) = p*2*pi*r. Setting the force of gravity equal to centripetal force (mv^2/r) you get G*2*pi*p = v^2 or
v = [2G*pi*p]^(1/2) which is a constant. Why do you need MOND theory. To me it seems Newtonian mechanics predicts a flat velocity curve.

Firstly, your simplified form of Newton's law only applies in certain cases such as when the mass is spherically symmetrical, or like a segment of a sphere along a diameter towards the relevant direction.

Secondly, I don't get your maths for the mass. If the galaxy is of uniform density per area of the disk, the mass inside a given radius would be proportional to the square of the radius. For the mass to be proportional to the radius, the area density would have to vary as 1/r.
 
zachzach said:
Consider a star of mass m at a distance r form the center of a circular disk galaxy. Newton's law: F = GM(r)m/(r^2) where M(r) is the amount of mass inside the radius r. If we consider a uniform galaxy then density (p) is p = M/L where L is the length = 2*pi*r. So M(r) = p*2*pi*r. Setting the force of gravity equal to centripetal force (mv^2/r) you get G*2*pi*p = v^2 or
v = [2G*pi*p]^(1/2) which is a constant. Why do you need MOND theory. To me it seems Newtonian mechanics predicts a flat velocity curve.

As Jonathan said, it's wrong.
Your galaxy isn't spherical, you can't use your (wrong) formulas. Fix them and find the rotation curve of the bulge.
If you want to find the disk rotation curve you should write your potential considering a cylindrical distribution (hint: Green's functions), then
<br /> \frac{v_{c}^{2}}{R} = \frac{\partial \phi (R,z=0)}{\partial R}<br />
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top