I Are MOND Equations Consistent Across Sources?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Arman777
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    mond
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the consistency of MOND equations as presented by Sanders and McGaugh versus those in Wikipedia. A key point raised is the interpretation of the variable F, which is suggested to represent the gravitational field rather than force, leading to confusion over unit consistency. Participants debate whether to use the parameters μ(a/a0) or μ(r/r0) in the equations, concluding that the difference is primarily notational. However, it is highlighted that the initial equation discussed is not actually MOND, prompting a call to close the thread due to misunderstandings about the equations' relevance. The conversation emphasizes the importance of accurately reading and interpreting foundational texts in theoretical physics.
Arman777
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
191
I am reading an article written by Sanders and McGaugh In the article, the first equation is written as $$F = f(r/r_0)GM/r^2~~~(1)$$

where ##x = r/r_0##
Then it goes like if
$$f(x) =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } x <<1 \\
x & \text{if } x >>1
\end{cases} $$

So the equation becomes

$$F =
\begin{cases}
GM/r^2 & \text{if } x <<1 \\
GM/rr_0 & \text{if } x >>1
\end{cases} $$

Then he defines the force acting on the particle ##m## as

$$F = ma\mu(a/a_0)$$

However in the wikipedia its claimed that$$F = \frac {GMm} {\mu(a/a_0)r^2} $$

My first question is what is this ##F## ? It cannot be force since the units do not match. Is it acceleration ?

Or in (1) ##m## is taken as 1 ?

The wiki equation and the equation (1) are the same ?
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
##F## is likely the gravitational field, which is the force per unit mass of the object the force acts upon.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke
kimbyd said:
##F## is likely the gravitational field, which is the force per unit mass of the object the force acts upon.
I see. Then should we use ##\mu(a/a_0)## or ##\mu(r/r_0)## ? Is there a difference ? For instance if I write $$F = f(r/r_0)GM/r^2=f(a/a_0)GM/r^2$$ Is this true ?
 
Arman777 said:
I see. Then should we use ##\mu(a/a_0)## or ##\mu(r/r_0)## ? Is there a difference ? For instance if I write $$F = f(r/r_0)GM/r^2=f(a/a_0)GM/r^2$$ Is this true ?
I think the difference between the two is just notation. You can always re-express a function in terms of different parameters if you want. With the above, if ##F## is a function of ##r##, then the second equation written out fully would be:
$$F(r) = f(a(r)/a_0)GM/r^2$$
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and Arman777
Arman777 said:
In the article, the first equation

Did you actually read the paper? The first equation is not MOND, and the first two pages of the paper explain why it's not MOND.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke, weirdoguy and PeterDonis
Vanadium 50 said:
Did you actually read the paper? The first equation is not MOND, and the first two pages of the paper explain why it's not MOND.
I was reading but I missed that sentence I think. Okay thanks
 
Arman777 said:
I missed that sentence I think
Vanadium 50 said:
first two pages

Two pages are more than a sentence. When you find yourself in a hole, it's best to stop digging. Given that this whole thread is based on reconciling two equations that aren't even supposed to be the same, I am going to ask it be closed.
 
  • Like
Likes Arman777
On that note, thread closed.
 
  • Sad
Likes strangerep
Back
Top