Once upon a time there were two hypotheses.

Hypothesis A required a small adjustment to one established theory, at a level that cannot be directly tested. It was otherwise compatible with all established scientific theories, and provided predictions that matched new observational data.

Hypothesis B required a new form of matter, for which no evidence had been found in spite of years of intensive looking. To match new observational data it was necessary to adjust an in-built factor for each case, so it did not provide any testable predictions.

Wouldn’t the normal scientific process be to move Hypothesis A to theory status, and to move Hypothesis B to (at best) a hypothesis with no supporting evidence?

But according to this week’s New Scientist, Hypothesis A is a description of the Modified Newtonian Dynamics Hypothesis, and Hypothesis B is the Dark Matter Hypothesis, so the acceptance of these hypotheses seems to be the reverse of what might be accepted.

It should be said that the article was in the form of an interview with the guy who came up with MOND, so it may be a little unbalanced.

Nonetheless, it does seem odd.

I still find the hypothesis that gravity and spatial expansion are opposing expressions of the torque from particle spin more reasonable than DM. In particular it provides a more reasonable factor when observing the orbital speeds of galactic bodies that suggests that gravitation is a factor related to entanglement. It doesn’t seem a stretch to imagine that the momentum within spin is that which either separates or entangles particles.

The origin of spin is minimally understood but the phenomena is the most intrinsic of particle features. It seems a reasonable supposition to interpret spin as that which separates particles and substantial energy from the open form of space, with the up/down cycle being imposed on the particle by its relationship to space. This might suggest that spin is the factor that provides the trigger that allows a BB to occur.

This doesn’t provide much to the discussion regarding why a more cumbersome theory/hypotheses is preferred over another but it might provide material for comparison.

To provide structure to my relating spin to orbital speeds I would suggest that spin defines direction and distance for a particle and is connected to entanglement through this factor………..

reaches for asprin(literally), and antidepressant, vitamins.

> But according to this week’s New Scientist, Hypothesis A is a description of the Modified Newtonian Dynamics Hypothesis, and Hypothesis B is the Dark Matter Hypothesis, so the acceptance of these hypotheses seems to be the reverse of what might be accepted.

That is total bull. MOND was originally a variation of a rejected theory – Newtonian Dynamics. A variation on a rejected theory is not more acceptable than a variation than on an accepted theory. General Relativity replaced Newtonian Dynamics way back.

Even though MOND variations on General Relativity have since been constructed, MOND was rejected on experimental evidence (gravitational lensing from galactic clusters incompatible with rotation curves of galaxies) before the extension to GR was formulated.

Further, as a hypothesis MOND’s extension of GR is arbitrary, cobbling two incompatible theories together by proposing an interpolation between the two, with arbitrary interpolation function. That’s not pretty.

The latest trouble of MOND is that it’s unable to explain the observed (Planck Satellite) wiggles in the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background.

MOND only hangs around as a possibility because no-one has yet found proof of dark matter.

mollwollfumble said:

> But according to this week’s New Scientist, Hypothesis A is a description of the Modified Newtonian Dynamics Hypothesis, and Hypothesis B is the Dark Matter Hypothesis, so the acceptance of these hypotheses seems to be the reverse of what might be accepted.

That is total bull. MOND was originally a variation of a rejected theory – Newtonian Dynamics. A variation on a rejected theory is not more acceptable than a variation than on an accepted theory. General Relativity replaced Newtonian Dynamics way back.

Even though MOND variations on General Relativity have since been constructed, MOND was rejected on experimental evidence (gravitational lensing from galactic clusters incompatible with rotation curves of galaxies) before the extension to GR was formulated.

Further, as a hypothesis MOND’s extension of GR is arbitrary, cobbling two incompatible theories together by proposing an interpolation between the two, with arbitrary interpolation function. That’s not pretty.

The latest trouble of MOND is that it’s unable to explain the observed (Planck Satellite) wiggles in the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background.

MOND only hangs around as a possibility because no-one has yet found proof of dark matter.

OK, what about Hypothesis C, the MODGER hypothesis? This gives the same predictions as MOND, but is a modification of GR.

Also what about the contention that dark matter requires a fudge factor to be calculated for each different galaxy, to match observations, but MOND/MODGER doesn’t?

Isn’t that worth something?

Also what about the contention that dark matter requires a fudge factor to be calculated for each different galaxy, to match observations, but MOND/MODGER doesn’t?

it does? first time i’ve seen this mentioned. any online ref available?

ChrispenEvan said:

Also what about the contention that dark matter requires a fudge factor to be calculated for each different galaxy, to match observations, but MOND/MODGER doesn’t?

it does? first time i’ve seen this mentioned. any online ref available?

It’s all based on the New Scientist article (this weeks). Haven’t done any research of my own I’m afraid.

Relying on mollwoll to set me straight :)

A small extract of the NS article available to non-subscribers:

On Dark Matter

http://galileospendulum.org/2013/08/05/no-this-new-theory-does-not-cast-doubt-on-dark-matter/

a fairly easy, and relatively up-to-date, explanation.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Also what about the contention that dark matter requires a fudge factor to be calculated for each different galaxy, to match observations, but MOND/MODGER doesn’t?

Isn’t that worth something?

you only need as much dark matter as is required to make observations match theory.. no more, no less

:)

http://cosmic-horizons.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/a-thousand-shadows-of-andromeda.html

by cusp.

ChrispenEvan said:

http://cosmic-horizons.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/a-thousand-shadows-of-andromeda.html

by cusp.

pfft.. what would he know..:P

ChrispenEvan said:

http://galileospendulum.org/2013/08/05/no-this-new-theory-does-not-cast-doubt-on-dark-matter/

a fairly easy, and relatively up-to-date, explanation.

OK, but both this piece and the NS article focus on the deficiencies of the hypothesis they reject, and say nothing about the deficiencies of the hypothesis they prefer, so it really doesn’t provide compelling evidence one way or the other.

i just put them up for comparison. plus they do note some of the problems with their own theory.

ChrispenEvan said:

i just put them up for comparison. plus they do note some of the problems with their own theory.

Cusp’s paper certainly does, but then it didn’t really come to any firm conclusion either.

What I would find a convincing argument that the MOND guy is talking crap is some evidence that the suggestion that MOND predicts the behaviour of galaxies without a post-observation applied fudge factor, in a way that DM doesn’t, is in fact not true. If it is true, then that seems to me to be a bit of an elephant in the room for DM.

But now I’d better go and do some work.

Do you know what I reckon

We should go round and beat these blokes up who came up with these hypotheses