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

Some repetitive mistakes and misconceptions about DM, MOND, TeVeS, and cosmology

  1. Dec 18, 2011 #1
    First MOND was the first to predict the cosmic background radiation, as repeated in this recent article (2011)


    in its page 121303-3:
    Whereas the LCDM-1999 prediction was falsified (A1:2 = 1.8). Only after the WMAP data was known (A1:2 = 2.34 ± 0.09), the LCDM model was amended, to posteriori, to fit the available data.

    Second, contrary to unfounded claims that MOND is dead, Physical Review Letters considers MOND serious enough to publish this very recent paper


    and to Select it for a Viewpoint in Physics. And Science and Nature news consider this paper serious enough to launch news

    http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/02/more-evidence-against-dark-matte.html?ref=ra [Broken]


    Maybe it is all because MOND has done another prediction, which has been brilliantly confirmed once again, whereas the LCDM model fails once again. See figure 2 in the PRL article and also the caption of the figure:
    As reported in Science news (link above)
    Third, TeVeS is not the relativistic generalisation of MOND but only a particular attempt to obtain a relativistic MOND. A violation of TeVeS does not imply a violation of MOND as some pretend...

    In despite of repetitive misconceptions and mistakes MOND continues to work as well as it has been doinf in hundred of tests during decades. And in despite of so many premature claims that it «was abandoned» or «is dead». MOND continues to be highlighted in top-journals and in science news thanks to its empirical success, never rivaled by LCDM.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 18, 2011 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Presumably, where he says the 'LCDM model was amended' he means that the best fit parameter estimates were amended. This isn't changing a model...

    But, we have more data now than 12 years ago. Can MOND model the CMB power spectrum, with its value of a_0 fitted to the galaxy rotation curves, without including dark matter?

    Presumably your post is aimed at me. I don't think I said that MOND was dead, just that I didn't know many people who still take it seriously.

    Are you taking commission for these comments? Show me how MOND fits the full WMAP CMB spectrum, and how it models, e.g., the Bullet cluster without CDM, and then we can talk about MOND confirming predictions where LCDM fails.

    Given that you have attempted to reopen a locked thread, with essentially no new content (i.e. you never attempted to answer Chalnoth in the original thread), this is done.
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2011
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook