4 ms·
Alleged confirmation of MOND in Gaia data
- nh23423fefe 3y agoAs a layman, I can't follow, but the paper [1] references AQUAL [2] "This systematic deviation agrees with the boost factor that the AQUAL theory predicts." But that theory doesn't agree with observation? And I'll paraphrase Sean Carroll [3] as saying something like Scalar-vector-tensor theories are just dark matter theories in disguise. Positing an noninteracting energy density, is just positing dark matter. 1 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.04613.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.04613.pdf 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AQUAL#:~:text=AQUAL%27s%20failure%20to%20predict%20the%20amount%20of%20gravitational%20lensing%20actually%20observed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AQUAL#:~:text=AQUAL%27s%20fail... 3 https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2023/07/31/245-solo-the-crisis-in-physics/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2023/07/31/245-...
- mkehrt 3y agoI (not the submitter) am hoping to get some good commentary here. I saw it go by and I’m curious how legit it is.
- fghorow 3y ago(Disclaimer, I have not read the paper, nor is it my field.) Taking "greater than 5 sigma" at face value, that sounds reasonably legit...