Why Does 'a' Being Smaller Than 'a0' Eliminate μ in MOND?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mesa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity mond
Click For Summary
In the discussion about MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), participants explore why the condition of 'a' being smaller than 'a0' eliminates the function μ from the equations, noting that μ is defined to behave differently at various scales. MOND aims to explain galaxy rotation curves by introducing a "fudge factor," but its effectiveness is questioned due to the variability of this factor across different galaxies, making dark matter a more appealing explanation. The conversation highlights that while MOND may fit certain observations, it struggles with larger scales and lacks a consistent underlying theory. Comparisons are made between MOND and dark matter theories, with dark matter requiring less adjustment to fit a wider range of astronomical observations. Ultimately, the discussion reflects ongoing debates in astrophysics regarding the validity and applicability of MOND versus dark matter.
  • #31
mesa said:
I'm a little surprised that would work, how is the integretion setup? Is it a function of the gravity of each sun and it's affect on the next by putting together an artificail layout based on average distances apart or is it simply the sum of all the masses thrown into the center for the swept area of the galaxy by a particular star?

I was told by an astrophysicist that it has only been recently that papers were published changing the model from a spherical density to a more disc like shape, I found this surprising as well.

I don't know the practical details. For a simple case, I guess one could assume one could treat the mass as a series of rings of varying density surrounding a spherical nucleus. In a more complex cases one could use numerical methods to sum the effects of mass density over a modeled shape of the galaxy consistent with the observations. There's certainly no need to model the individual stars, because from sufficient distance the gravitational effect is essentially the same as that of a continuous medium with an appropriate average density.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Jonathan Scott said:
I don't know the practical details. For a simple case, I guess one could assume one could treat the mass as a series of rings of varying density surrounding a spherical nucleus. In a more complex cases one could use numerical methods to sum the effects of mass density over a modeled shape of the galaxy consistent with the observations. There's certainly no need to model the individual stars, because from sufficient distance the gravitational effect is essentially the same as that of a continuous medium with an appropriate average density.

Where do you think would be a good place to start to find the actual formulas used for these calculations? I looked online and came up with very little. Are there members on the board that would be helpful?

I am going to quiz the proffesors at school again and see if I can get a more complete answer. I was told by one it was basically the same as you stated originally; the mass is essentially summed and put into the center and then calculated.

That seems overly simplified and frankly I don't see how that could calculate anything properly.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
72
Views
10K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K