3 ms·
As Stacy McGaugh likes to put it in his blog - the question is why MOND (a relatively simple theory with just one free parameter) is able to make successful pre
by gizmondo 6y ago
As Stacy McGaugh likes to put it in his blog - the question is why MOND (a relatively simple theory with just one free parameter) is able to make successful predictions at all? Predictions like this one, which you have no reason to expect to be true in CDM models?
- graderjs 6y agoProbably MOND is a "good enough first approximation" to the whole story, which might come out later, and include more terms. I think it's interesting some people are doing the complex (to me, anyway) maths from a theory point of view to find ways to get it to spit out MOND. I have almost zero understanding of all this, but none of the theories I read seem physically insightful. They say MOND a_0 constant is close to cH_0, but not exact. I wonder if some of the difference (if that is significant) could be c altering.
- raducu 6y agoOccam's razor aside, why can't both theories be correct? That dark matter exists as well as a modified gravity thing.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cwmma 6y agomost MOND theories do include some sort of dark matter, there is just less of it and it could possibly be less exotic (think brown dwarfs and such)