Cosmology’s crisis needs MOND

It takes more than one study to falsify a theory

With evidence mounting against the standard model of cosmology, Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND, is the strongest contender. But in a recent iai News article, Idranil Banik argued that new research into wide binary stars falsifies MOND. Here, Pavel Kroupa and Jan Pflamm-Altenburg argue that data around wide binary stars are beset by uncertainty, bringing into question what, if anything, can be determined from them at the present – and ask whether a single test, even if carried out to the highest confidence, is sufficient to falsify an otherwise successful theory.

 

There is increasing evidence that Newton's universal law of gravitation does not work for astronomical systems. The leading contender for a better theory that has made remarkable predictions and has been shown to naturally account for a large range of astronomical observations is Milgromian dynamics, or MOND. In a recent iai News article, Indranil Banik argues

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Join the conversation

K. A. 13 June 2024

P.S. Also it explains the "Dark Matter" phenomenon as result of universal acceleration of inertia. Because inertia of bodies provided by means of real gravity of far stars.

K. A. 13 June 2024

@Bud Rapanault

Great comment! I have such theory, which explains the essence of Gravity, its properties, how it appers, how it connected with other kind of interactions, and why it have such value, and not another one.

If you interested, you can read about it in the "Unified theory of Interactions" on Vixra

Bud Rapanault 10 December 2023

Herein lies the root of the problem: "gravitation is the least understood physical phenomenon." That is correct. There is, in fact, no proper scientific account of the physical mechanism that gives rise to gravitational effects, notwithstanding Wheeler's empirically baseless, causally-interacting spacetime fantasy. Newton, Einstein and Milgrom have produced reasonably good mathematical formulations describing the gravitational effect but they offer no guidance as to its cause.

Over the last century our inventory of the components of physical reality has increased by orders of magnitude and yet we have discerned no physical mechanism for gravity. Despite the enormous increase in our knowledge base, modern theoretical physics remains wedded to 100 year old assumptions made in the absence of that knowledge. The new inventory extends from the quantum scale to the cosmological scale but the gravitational effect is not observed at either the quantum scale or at the largest cosmological scales.

If modern theoretical physics were a scientific enterprise the gravitational mechanism would be at the heart of fundamental research programs. But modern theoretical physics is a mathematicist enterprise and such research is not in evidence. Instead fundamental "research" consists in elaborate efforts to justify existing mathematical models by searching for non-existent physical entities in order to maintain the fiction that Newton-Einstein derived "universal laws" by modeling gravitational effects in the Solar System. Into that cauldron of illogic came Milgrom's MOND.

MOND is an unwelcome interloper in the theoretical physics community because it demonstrates that the cause of the discrepancy between the standard gravitational models' predictions and empirical observations lies with the models themselves and not with some otherwise undetectable Dark Matter and Dark Energy. This has undesirable socio-economic consequences given that DM and DE research is a well funded source of employment in the theoretical physics community.

Despite its efficacy and predictive successes MOND, like its precursors, offers no physical explanation for the gravitational effect that it models. Therefore, MOND does not provide a scientifically adequate account of gravitational phenomena. it does not describe a physical, empirically plausible mechanism for the effect it successfully models. Neither did Newton or Einstein of course but both were working with far less knowledge of the scale and complexity of the Cosmos that we now have.

The authors suggest that, “We need to develop a new model, and in doing so take into account that gravitation needs to be effectively stronger under certain conditions…”, but that new model is to again forgo any attempt to understand the nature of the underlying physical mechanism. The only requirement is to model a stronger gravitational effect under certain conditions, which is just what MOND does. From that mathematicist perspective MOND is a great success. From a scientific perspective, it is just kicking the can down the road