3 ms·

Yes, I wasn't using the term falsifiable well at all there. It should be possible to falsify a theory, even if it's hard. And we are falsifying dark matter th

Yes, I wasn't using the term falsifiable well at all there. It should be possible to falsify a theory, even if it's hard. And we are falsifying dark matter theories, excluding some of them in the process. I'm not sure MOND is harder to falsify than dark matter. There have been some recent observations looking at wide binary stars. Throw as much money into falsifying MOND as we have into trying to find dark matter particles, and we can compare!

elashri 2y ago
If you have a way of obtaining this money for MOND, that would be great. Until then the scientific community will focus the limited resources on the more sound ideas. And will focus less on a theory that have the potential to evade all observational contradictions by changing the fitting parameters. And please don't compare that with dark matter because it has very well integrated framework with particle physics. It does not come merely as a way to only explain galaxy rotation curves while having problems with any larger structures.
- MattPalmer1086 2y ago
  MOND only has a single constant parameter, so I'm not sure if you are referring to something else here? Making dark matter fit observation involves halos and cusps and getting the distribution just right so that the Tully Fisher relation (which is about the luminous matter) still holds. As a layman, I find MOND involves considerably less fitting!
  - elashri 2y ago
    You will need to have a field theory to go beyond what MOND in original form does. It does only modify Newtonian gravity in the non-relativistic regime, and it applies well at the scale of galaxies but does not address relativistic effects like the one we actually see. One example would be gravitational lensing . To be a successful theory of gravity you would need to be consistent with General relativity. That's the reason why you would go to extend MOND to field theory. The most famous framework would be TeVeS and it does have many fitting parameters.
    - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
      Thanks, that is helpful. I knew that MOND wasn't relativistic; that a relativistic version might have many more parameters had not occurred to me.

elashri 2y ago

If you have a way of obtaining this money for MOND, that would be great. Until then the scientific community will focus the limited resources on the more sound ideas. And will focus less on a theory that have the potential to evade all observational contradictions by changing the fitting parameters. And please don't compare that with dark matter because it has very well integrated framework with particle physics. It does not come merely as a way to only explain galaxy rotation curves while having problems with any larger structures.

MattPalmer1086 2y ago
MOND only has a single constant parameter, so I'm not sure if you are referring to something else here? Making dark matter fit observation involves halos and cusps and getting the distribution just right so that the Tully Fisher relation (which is about the luminous matter) still holds. As a layman, I find MOND involves considerably less fitting!
- elashri 2y ago
  You will need to have a field theory to go beyond what MOND in original form does. It does only modify Newtonian gravity in the non-relativistic regime, and it applies well at the scale of galaxies but does not address relativistic effects like the one we actually see. One example would be gravitational lensing . To be a successful theory of gravity you would need to be consistent with General relativity. That's the reason why you would go to extend MOND to field theory. The most famous framework would be TeVeS and it does have many fitting parameters.
  - MattPalmer1086 2y ago
    Thanks, that is helpful. I knew that MOND wasn't relativistic; that a relativistic version might have many more parameters had not occurred to me.