What does Veeky Forums think of the recent update to the radial acceleration relation for spiral galaxies?
arxiv.org
Regardless of whether dark matter or MOND is correct, this result clearly indicates that there is a fundamental relation between the gravitational potential from the baryons and the predicted potential from galactic rotation curves. This implies that it is the BARYONS that dictate the potential of galaxies, not dark matter.
Other urls found in this thread:
arxiv.org
adsabs.harvard.edu
adsabs.harvard.edu
adsabs.harvard.edu
adsabs.harvard.edu
adsabs.harvard.edu
adsabs.harvard.edu
adsabs.harvard.edu
twitter.com
I think it's been slightly oversold. We already know there is strong relation between baryonic matter and the dynamics of a galaxy, the Tully-Fisher relation that MOND is based on. That part isn't new, this new relation is possibly just an extension of that relationship. What really needs to be done (And what the authors should have done) is go to a large hydrodynamical cosmological simulation like Illustris or EAGLE and see if the same relationship holds. Before claiming CDM cannot possibly explain this why not actually see if it does. You may in fact find this relationship already exists in standard dark matter simulations.
>mfw this post
I wish people would talk to me like this irl.
Stacy's point is merely just the data. At the end of the day, all they did was assume Newton holds and used a M/L to trace the baryonic potential. so even if MOND or DM didn't exist, we would still find this relation in nature. that's why the theory wasn't fleshed out.
Stacy has made a lot of papers in the past showing how MOND works, but his point with this paper is just to show the data, nothing about theory. I know some people have begun trying to do hydro sims with MOND, but the problem is most people won't even consider it and think its a crackpot theory.
I forgot to mention that Milgrom has also made a response already
Additionally after actually reading the papers around this one I'm more convinced it's overblown. This work is an extension of what people call the mass discrepancy acceleration relation (MDAR), it's been known about for sometime. Furthermore people actually have looked in simulations (albeit dark matter only, no baryons actually simulated) and this relation is explicable within standard CDM. Sadly as far as I can see no one has used a full hydro simulation to do this.
It is very interesting that Leli is on BOTH of those papers
There's data, then there's the conclusion and then there's what you say to the press. If you're going to use the words "challenge to dark matter" you should justify it. If you just want to present the relation that would be fine, but they went further than that.
Nobody is doing hydro with MOND because MOND can't do structure formation much less galaxy formation. When I talk about hydro I mean for dark matter simulations. This relationship speaks to the relation between baryonic and dark matter components, you need to simulate both. Nobody takes MOND seriously because it isn't a cosmological model, it just doesn't describe 99% of cosmology and the bits it does aren't justified. MOND is a data fitting model, not a physical one.
That's because he has literally nothing better to do. The guy I work with tried to solve some issues with MOND and he showed them to Milgrom who dismissed them on the basis that a model must prosper as it was first presented. Milgrom now thinks the solution is dark matter and MOND.
It's not unusual. I'm writing a rebuttal to another paper now and have both major authors on my paper.
a quick search on ADS shows people are doing MOND simulations.
adsabs.harvard.edu
adsabs.harvard.edu
adsabs.harvard.edu
you are a CDM simulator aren't you? how does it feel to be so blind to anything that doesn't fit into your paradigm?