A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Physical theory which matches MOND results



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 15th 05, 09:19 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Physical theory which matches MOND results

I'm on a couple of weeks leave from my computing job at the
moment and I've been using the time to do some physics again.
I've found that one of my old ideas gives the same result as the
successful but purely empirical MOND theory which explains galaxy
rotation curves, but derives it from a simple physical
hypothesis. I've currently posted about it to the moderated
newsgroup sci.physics.research and also e-mailed a copy to Prof.
Milgrom, the author of the MOND theory, but it would be nice to
discuss it with someone before I run out of leave (even if only
to shoot it down so I can start thinking about something else).
Perhaps to do it properly I should submit a letter to some
journal, but if this is already known about that would be a
waste of time, especially as I don't know where to start.

Here are the details of the idea (which I hope is sufficiently
specific and testable to call a "theory"):

In local GR calculations, one normally assumes that space is flat
at a sufficient distance from the local mass or masses which are
being studied. However, if the local mass m constitutes a
significant fraction m/M of the total mass of the universe, then
this assumption seems questionable. If the universe is spatially
finite at a given moment in time, then a more plausible
assumption would be that the region containing a fraction m/M of
the total mass would also loosely speaking contain a related
fraction of the 3D "angle" needed to close the universe, so the
limit would be "conical" rather than "flat".

More specifically, a starting hypothesis might be that a sphere
enclosing a fraction m/M of the total mass of the universe would
effectively be slightly "conical", missing that proportion of its
surface area at any given radius, in the same way that a 2D cone
made out of paper has a fixed proportion of its circumference
missing at a given radius. For the 3D case, this would mean that
the effective radius of the sphere was reduced by a factor
sqrt(1-m/M). This factor is then the cosine of the angle by
which the "cone" diverges from flat space, so the sine of the
angle is sqrt(m/M) and this also then gives the angle of deviation
from flatness in radians.

The conical space-time at distance r from the source is then
curved by 1/r sqrt(m/M) so bodies moving through that
space-time would appear to be accelerated by an extra
gravitational acceleration c**2/r sqrt(m/M).

In MOND, the extra acceleration is sqrt(G m a0)/r where a0 is
an arbitrary constant set to be approximately 1.2e-10 ms**-2 to
fit the experimental results. For our hypothesis to match MOND
exactly, we only require that M is equal to (c**4 / G a0),
which gives a value of approximately 10**54 kg. Although
trivial methods of estimating the mass of the universe give a
result a little lower, around 3 * 10**52 kg, this seems to me
to be an interestingly close fit. This suggests that the
existing MOND acceleration term could perhaps be written
instead as c**2/r sqrt(m/M), where M is around 10**54 kg and
may well correspond in some sense to the total mass of the
universe, and that it might be possible to find a way to relate
this physically to a "conical" limit instead of a "flat" limit
in gravitational calculations.

I must admit to some use of "analogies" rather than formal
calculations in the way that I get from the cone angle being
sqrt(m/M) to the space-time curvature being 1/r times that and
hence the acceleration being c**2 times the curvature. I'm
also not a professional physicist but as it is possible for
readers to check out everything I've said for themselves
that should not have any bearing on the value of the results.

The "conical" model might also help how to analyze cases where
more than one mass is involved. In particular, it seems that as
the conical model effectively creates the large-scale curvature
of the universe out of conical distortions surrounding individual
masses, then these conical effects may not necessarily be
spherically symmetrical, which might give rise to possible
testable differences from the original MOND theory.

Jonathan Scott

  #3  
Old September 16th 05, 01:05 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think that 10**54 kg is close enough given that M is a
"total" mass (or mass-energy) in some sense, rather
than simply the mass of the observable universe. I'm
not sure what the current estimates are, and they
probably assume some dark matter which isn't needed
with this type of theory, but I'm fairly sure that a value
a couple of orders of magnitude on the high side is
not completely ruled out.

It is also possible that I've missed a factor of 1/(4 pi)
or 1/(2 pi) or some other constant in the way that
I derived the curvature based on an analogy
with lower dimensions. If for example it were 1/(2 pi)
then that would give M = 2.5 * 10**52 kg. However,
I'd rather not add any such extra fudge factors
without a good mathematical reason. A few years
ago when I was studying GR I'm sure I could have
checked that bit in minutes, but I'm a bit rusty now
so unless I get inspired within the next day or two
I'd prefer to just leave it for others to check for any
missing constants.

Jonathan Scott

  #4  
Old September 18th 05, 06:09 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On rereading my GR text books, I now realize that the
assumption of flatness at infinity in the Schwarzschild
solution is something that apparently results purely from
spherical symmetry combined with Einstein's vacuum
field equations. That means either that my suggestion
conflicts with GR or that it conflicts with at least one of
the assumptions behind the usual spherical solution.
I'm continuing to investigate whether perhaps there is
some assumption about the physical coordinates which
would still allow the 3-D equivalent of a conical limit.
However, given the success of MOND as opposed to
GR in predicting galaxy rotation curves, I'd be more
inclined to suggest that it's GR that needs fixing.

I've also discovered that the standard GR solution for
the shape of space around an infinite "cosmic string"
involves a missing angle, so that planes perpendicular
to the string have the geometry of a 2-D cone. On
that basis I'd have expected to be able to get a 3-D
conical effect for a sufficiently massive sphere.

  #5  
Old September 18th 05, 07:09 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Looks like it does fit with GR after all. As far as I
can see, if one takes the Schwarzschild solution
and multiplies the dr^2 component of the metric
by any constant (creating the 3-D conical effect
that I was looking for) it appears that the new
equation is still a solution of the vacuum field equations.
This is apparently normally ignored because it can
be hidden mathematically by changing the scale of
the time coordinate (which seems questionable to
me because I think that adjusting the previously
chosen background coordinates has physical
implications). I think that I can therefore add
the 3-D conical limit to the Schwarzschild solution
merely by inserting a constant factor in the dr^2
term of the metric.

Whether this has any effect on the geodesics (and
hence reproduces the MOND effect) is yet to be
seen.

(Where are all the GR experts when you need them?)

Jonathan Scott

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cosmic acceleration rediscovered greywolf42 Astronomy Misc 258 February 11th 05 02:21 PM
[Fwd: Top Secret Earth Station Message-Five Star-*****] Bill Sheppard Misc 169 January 7th 05 10:08 PM
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light ralph sansbury Astronomy Misc 8 August 31st 03 02:53 AM
Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf greywolf42 Astronomy Misc 13 August 30th 03 10:23 PM
Hypothetical astrophysics question Matthew F Funke Astronomy Misc 39 August 11th 03 03:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.