MOND -- Understanding Equations

  • I
  • Thread starter Arman777
  • Start date
  • Tags
    mond
In summary, the conversation discusses equations related to MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) and the force acting on a particle. The first equation, written as $$F = f(r/r_0)GM/r^2~~~(1)$$ is not MOND, and the article goes on to explain why it is not. The second equation, found on Wikipedia, is likely the gravitational field, which is the force per unit mass of the object the force acts upon. The conversation also touches on the difference between using ##\mu(a/a_0)## or ##\mu(r/r_0)## in the equations, with the conclusion that it is simply a matter of notation.
  • #1
Arman777
Insights Author
Gold Member
2,168
193
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
  • #2
##F## is likely the gravitational field, which is the force per unit mass of the object the force acts upon.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke
  • #3
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 ?
 
  • #4
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
  • #5
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
  • #6
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
 
  • #7
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
  • #8
On that note, thread closed.
 
  • Sad
Likes strangerep

1. What is MOND?

MOND stands for Modified Newtonian Dynamics, which is a theory proposed as an alternative to dark matter in explaining the observed dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters.

2. How does MOND work?

MOND modifies Newton's laws of gravity at low accelerations, which are typically found in the outer regions of galaxies. It introduces a new acceleration scale, below which gravity behaves differently than predicted by Newton's laws.

3. What evidence supports MOND?

There is observational evidence that the dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters can be explained by MOND without the need for dark matter. This includes the observed flat rotation curves of galaxies and the observed mass discrepancies in galaxy clusters.

4. What are the limitations of MOND?

MOND is not a complete theory and cannot explain all observed phenomena. It has difficulty explaining the observed properties of galaxy clusters and the large-scale structure of the universe. Additionally, it has not been successfully incorporated into the framework of general relativity.

5. How does MOND impact our understanding of the universe?

MOND challenges the current understanding of the universe, which relies on the existence of dark matter to explain the observed dynamics of galaxies and galaxy clusters. If MOND is proven to be a valid theory, it could lead to a major shift in our understanding of gravity and the structure of the universe.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
969
Replies
2
Views
368
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
765
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
535
Replies
59
Views
6K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
926
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
631
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
389
Back
Top