 If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.  simple MOND question
 Author Name Remember Me? Password
 Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

## simple MOND question

 Thread Tools Display Modes
#1 August 28th 16, 04:47 PM posted to sci.astro.research
 Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_] external usenet poster Posts: 273 simple MOND question

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modifi...onian_dynamics

seems like a good introduction to the subject. In particular, it is
clear how Eq. (1) (which is the main postulate of MOND) leads to Eq.
(2), which is one of the main predictions of MOND (and it is not obvious
how this arises in more standard astrophysics and cosmology).

So far, so good.

But the equation immediately before Eq. (2),

F_N = ma^2/a_0,

can be rewritten as

F_N = ma(a/a_0).

The standard expression, of course, is

F_N = ma.

In the "deep MOND regime", where a is much smaller than a_0, the factor
in parentheses is much less than 1. So, the force in this case is the
standard force multiplied by a factor much less than 1. In other words,
at low acceleration ("deep MOND regime"), the MOND force should be
LESS than the standard force. However, this regime corresponds to the
outskirts of galaxies, where the observed orbital velocity is much MORE
than expected from the standard force law (which is why, if one assumes
the standard force law, one is led to dark matter to explain the

What am I missing?
#2 August 28th 16, 07:06 PM posted to sci.astro.research
 Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_] external usenet poster Posts: 273 simple MOND question

In article , "Phillip Helbig (undress to

But the equation immediately before Eq. (2),

F_N = ma^2/a_0,

can be rewritten as

F_N = ma(a/a_0).

The standard expression, of course, is

F_N = ma.

In the "deep MOND regime", where a is much smaller than a_0, the factor
in parentheses is much less than 1. So, the force in this case is the
standard force multiplied by a factor much less than 1. In other words,
at low acceleration ("deep MOND regime"), the MOND force should be
LESS than the standard force. However, this regime corresponds to the
outskirts of galaxies, where the observed orbital velocity is much MORE
than expected from the standard force law (which is why, if one assumes
the standard force law, one is led to dark matter to explain the

OK, answering my own question here. F_N is the NEWTONIAN force. What
is confusing is that since the Newtonian force is known (F_N=ma), it is
somewhat confusing to write an expression for it which includes a_0, the
new constant (units of acceleration) introduced by MOND, and where a is
NOT the NEWTONIAN acceleration, but rather the "total" acceleration.
Presumably, the interesting thing is the acceleration predicted by MOND,
which is "a" above. So, in the "deep MOND regime", we have

a = sqrt(a_0*F_N/m).

Since

F_N = GMm/(r^2),

we have

a = sqrt(GMa_0)/r.

Contrasting this with the Newtonian acceleration, it falls off as 1/r
instead of 1/r^2 (in the low-acceleration regime), so the MOND
acceleration is of course larger.

Since the acceleration in a circular orbit is sqrt(GM/r^2), we get

v^4 = GMa_0.

In other words, the circular velocity is (in the low-acceleration
regime) independent of the radius, leading to the famous flat rotation
curves of spiral galaxies.

Mond introduces a new constant with the dimensions of acceleration, but
spiral galaxies don't have a constant ACCELERATION in the
low-acceleration regime, but rather a constant CIRCULAR VELOCITY.
#3 September 24th 16, 09:22 PM posted to sci.astro.research
 Nicolaas Vroom external usenet poster Posts: 216 simple MOND question

On Sunday, 28 August 2016 20:06:48 UTC+2, Phillip Helbig wrote:

For my own thoughts about MOND read this:
http://users.telenet.be/nicvroom/mond.htm

OK, answering my own question here. F_N is the NEWTONIAN force. What
is confusing is that since the Newtonian force is known (F_N=ma), it is
somewhat confusing to write an expression for it which includes a_0, the
new constant (units of acceleration) introduced by MOND, and where a is
NOT the NEWTONIAN acceleration, but rather the "total" acceleration.

I prefer to call this the MOND acceleration (FN = Newton versus FM = MOND)
When I do a simulation the program looks something like:
for i = 1 to 100
ai = 0
for j = 1 to 100
if ij then
r = abs(ri - rj)
ai = ai + sqrt(G * mj * a0) /r (4)
next j
vi = vi + ai*dt
ri = r1 + vi*dt
next i
This is only a rough impression.
In reality you should use ax, ay, vx, vy, x and y
In the case of Newton equation (4) becomes:
ai = ai + G * mj / r^2 (5)
Equation (4) becomes equal to equation (5) when a0 = G * mj/ r^2

In both eq(4) and eq(5) ai represents a summation.
In Newton's case in eq (5) when you increase the number of objects
the total acceleration stays the same.
When you divide mj by N the right hand part of eq(5) becomes: (summation)
ai = ai + N * G * {mj/N}/r^2 for N objects.
This is the same as eq(5) for 1 object with mass mj

In MOND this is different. When you divide mj by N eq(4) becomes
ai = ai + N * sqrt(G * {mj/N} * a0) /r or
ai = ai + sqrt(N) * sqrt(G * mj * a0) /r
This is not the same as eq(4) for 1 object.
In fact eq(4) becomes larger.
This means that less mass is required the more objects are considered
with MOND.

Presumably, the interesting thing is the acceleration predicted by MOND,
which is "a" above. So, in the "deep MOND regime", we have

a = sqrt(a_0*F_N/m). (1)

Since

F_N = GMm/(r^2), (2)

we have

a = sqrt(GMa_0)/r. (3)

Contrasting this with the Newtonian acceleration, it falls off as 1/r
instead of 1/r^2 (in the low-acceleration regime), so the MOND
acceleration is of course larger.

That is true (also the speed is larger) but the consequence is that
if you want to simulate a specific GRC which MOND much less mass
is required.
In fact in the range of a GRC where v = constant there is no mass.

Since the acceleration in a circular orbit is sqrt(GM/r^2), we get

v^4 = GMa_0.

In other words, the circular velocity is (in the low-acceleration
regime) independent of the radius, leading to the famous flat rotation
curves of spiral galaxies.

IMO not all GRC's are flat.
See https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0010594v2.pdf Paragraph 4.3
See http://arxiv.org/ps/astro-ph/0010594v2 specific fig 4

This document is interesting because it discusses both MOND and darkmatter:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.7062

About our Milky Way:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01507
The question it what happens after 8kpc

A document with an unexpected conclusion?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2401

Mond introduces a new constant with the dimensions of acceleration, but
spiral galaxies don't have a constant ACCELERATION in the
low-acceleration regime, but rather a constant CIRCULAR VELOCITY.

I agree this sounds strange. This constant acceleration takes care
that there is almost no matter required in the outer region.
As such GRC's with MOND always increase or are flat.

In Wikipedia they use the function mu(a/a0) = a/(a+a0)
When a goes to zero than FM = m * mu(a/a0) * a becomes smaller than
FN = m * a. That means that at large distances masses are not taken
into account (relatif speaking) with MOND, resulting in a flat GRC.

Nicolaas Vroom

#4 September 24th 16, 09:22 PM posted to sci.astro.research
 [email protected] external usenet poster Posts: 35 simple MOND question

In article , "Phillip Helbig (undress to

Since the acceleration in a circular orbit is sqrt(GM/r^2), we get

v^4 = GMa_0.

In other words, the circular velocity is (in the low-acceleration
regime) independent of the radius, leading to the famous flat rotation
curves of spiral galaxies.

Mond introduces a new constant with the dimensions of acceleration, but
spiral galaxies don't have a constant ACCELERATION in the
low-acceleration regime, but rather a constant CIRCULAR VELOCITY.

If I pretend that our formulation of GR is incorrect in some manner not yet=
discovered, and that the constant circular velocities observed in galaxies=
, that are independent of R, are caused by spacetime curvature rather than =
a MOND change of Newtonian expectations, how must spacetime curvature be ch=

Seems to me the circular velocity is constant, but, the radius of curvature=
is getting larger. So it seems like the spacetime curvature would be gett=
ing smaller. But that it would not be getting smaller by as fast as we wou=
ld normally expect using current GR formulation.

Just trying to understand how we would understand the observation **IF** it=
were due to spacetime curvature. Would spacetime curvature be falling off=
by 1/R or some other factor?

Ross

 Thread Tools Show Printable Version Email this Page Display Modes Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Space Science     Space Science Misc     News     Space Shuttle     Space Station     Science     Technology     Policy     History Astronomy and Astrophysics     Astronomy Misc     Amateur Astronomy     CCD Imaging     Research     FITS     Satellites     Hubble     SETI Others     Astro Pictures     Solar     UK Astronomy     Misc About SpaceBanter     About this forum Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post HELP! - simple question! [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 10 May 2nd 05 06:59 AM HELP! - simple question! [email protected] Astronomy Misc 2 April 23rd 05 04:07 PM MOND, a Paper and a Question Tom Kirke Astronomy Misc 0 April 1st 04 08:58 PM FW: Simple Question Steve Willner Research 13 July 11th 03 10:46 PM FW: Simple Question Richard S. Sternberg Research 0 July 7th 03 06:14 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:36 AM. - Contact Us - SpaceBanter Home - FAQ - Links - Privacy Statement - Top