"MOND", Prelude to "Critique of the Universe, Introduction"

[G Anthony]

There is a proof of the singular nature of black holes, but it is being ignored. This proof was mentioned in an old paper by Michael Rowan Robinson. It can be found in ArXiv from after 1998. I ran across it by accident and I do not remember the title or year of publicatiion. I e-mailed him to ask if he could remember the paper where he made the comment.

 

In his comment, he said that it has been suggested that black holes, precisely and only because they are relativistic singularities, must possess an hyperbolic gravitational field. A singularity, as a single point mass with infinite density, must have a gravitational field that also tends to infinity as one approaches the center. The 2D profile of such a field potential, therefore, must be a hyperbola. Normally, when an object exists in spacetime, it presents with an overall parabolic field profile according to Newton's Law of Gravity. Such a field will fall off as 1/r². But, a hyperbolic gravitational field will fall off much much more slowly, as 1/r.

 

In 1983 Mordehai Milgrom announced that he had discovered a new twist in Newton's Law of gravity. He studied a statistically significant number of spiral and other types of galaxies that had redshift measurements made of the rotational velocity distribution of their component stars. When he plotted velocity of these stars versus distance from the center, velocity did not fall to near zero as it should have at large r. Newton's Law was wrong!

 

Of course it was. Milgrom's galaxies had supermassive black holes embedded within them. According to general relativity (GR) the central black hole and even also the associated matter in the disk induced a hyperbolic gravitational field in spacetime even very far from the center, that is, as r tended to infinity. A hyperbolic field will tend to zero only very slowly at large r compared to a Newtonian parabolic field. In fact, there is a near constant difference between a parabolic Newtonian field and a relativistic black-hole hyperbolic field generated by the same mass, as r tends to infinity. This near constant difference accounts for Milgrom's very small residual centripetal acceleration constant that he used to mathematically summarize his findings as an addition to Newton's Law. Hence, he called his model "modified Newtonian dynamics" or MOND.

 

He did not respect the implications of supermassive relativistic black holes in the nuclei of his galaxies. In 1983, most scientists hardly even knew of them. So, Dark Matter was proposed to account for the MOND effect. But, Dark Matter is unnecessary. No enormous clouds of hypothetical "weakly interacting massive particles" or WIMPs are needed to account for the MOND effect. No fundamental change in Newton's Law of Gravity is needed either. This has huge implications to the so-called Lambda/Cold-Dark-Matter model of the universe that is based on the Friedmann equations and the FLRW metric.

 

Science is missing an opportunity here. The existence of the MOND effect proves the nature of supermassive black holes as true singularities. One can mathematically prove that relativistic singularities must exist by means of the treatment of general relativity given by Schwartzchild and others. But, here is observational (experimental) proof that is as hard and undeniable as such proof ever gets. It is more important to find more ways to verify an all-encompassing theory like general relativity than it is to find ways to validate one particular favored model of the universe by inventing Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) to fix the gaping holes. This is the true meaning of the MOND effect. See http://www.lonetree-pictures.net for more.

[G Anthony]

A point mass having the size of many hundreds or even thousands or millions of suns will have a very different gravitational field from the normal star, planet or galaxy because its mass is not distributed in 3D space - it must exist as a 1D singularity. Singularities do not possess the usual parabolic gravitational field potential that is assumed by Newtonian Dynamics. Such a black hole field must have a shape that is infinitely deep as the origin or center of mass is approached since general relativity says a black hole has infinite density with all its mass compressed into a single point. An infinitely deep gravitational potential has the 2D profile of a hyperbola, not Isaac Newton's parabola.

 

The gravitational attraction around a black hole must fall off with distance from the center as 1/r, r being the distance. Newtonian Dynamics assumes that the field potential is parabolic, falling off as 1/r². The fact of this difference is huge.

 

So, when the centripetal acceleration of stars in the periphery of spiral galaxies is computed, it does not agree with ordinary Newtonian Dynamics because the centers of most spiral galaxies contain supermassive black holes. The mass of the galactic disk must actually contribute to the effective mass of the black hole in the nucleus, making the 1/r relationship even more pervasive.

 

The acceleration difference between the 1/r versus the 1/r² relations, at large r, is virtually a constant, just as Mordehai Milgrom observed in 1983. The MOND effect is real.

 

But, the inference of "Dark Matter" is unnecessary to explain the MOND effect, nor is a modification of Newton's Law. There is no Dark Matter. No WIMPs or "weakly interacting massive particles" will ever be found in any particle accelerator now or in the future. The theories of subnuclear physics do not have to be rewritten to accomodate an odd new particle. General Relativity does not have to be revised. Newtonian Dynamics survives with only the ADDITION of a footnote. When a black hole is involved, Newton's Law of Gravity must include a term in 1/r as well as, perhaps (as in galaxies) one in 1/r². That is all.

[G Anthony]

As far as Dark Matter is concerned, I report only what Milgrom says he discovered after carefully considering data from many many spiral galaxies. I am saying only that he ignores the fact that nearly all spiral galaxies and most other types have supermassive black holes embedded in them. This makes a huge difference. Black holes and the whole mass of the galactic disk will behave like a non-Newtonian entity having a gravitational potential that falls off as 1/r, not as 1/r². Comparing a graph of this hyperbolic versus a Newtonian parabolic potential one sees that there is a virtually constant difference at large r. This is the source of Milgrom's residual centripetal acceleration constant that he says he sees in most of the galaxies he studied.

 

I am not arguing with Milgrom's findings. Far from it. I say he is probably right. But, he needs to consider the implications of the existence of relativistic supermassive black holes. This comment is just that, a comment on the cosmological meaning of relativity in regard to black holes in galaxies. Milgrom proposes a new model for gravity. He calls it modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND). But, MOND will require a rewrite of general relativity, one of the most validated theories in all science (only quantum mechanics is better verified). My comment leaves GR intact. My comment is simple, direct and jibes with the facts while being more parsimonious than MOND.

 

One does not observe the rotation of galaxies directly against the background of other galaxies. They rotate too slowly. One observes red-shifts from stars in different regions of each galaxy. Plotting rotational velocities got this way versus distance from the center of a galaxy, one should see a monotonic drop in velocity to near zero as one approaches larger r. Instead, velocity reaches a constant nonzero plateau. This contradicts Newton's Law of Gravity. Milgrom wants to add his tiny, residual acceleration constant to Newton's Law. All I am saying is that it would be better to take into account the non-Newtonian hyperbolic black hole gravitational potential that general relativity says simply must exist in almost all spiral galaxies and also in other types of galaxies that may harbor black holes. Galaxies that do not happen to show the MOND effect probably do not have supermassive black holes, or else their black holes have formed so recently that there has not been enough time for the effect to propagate all the way to and beyond the periphery.

 

Yes, Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess both depended on the same Lambda/Cold-Dark-Matter model of the universe that uses the Friedmann equations as a basis. So, they really didn't have to coordinate their results. But, they did. And, they used the model to predict the model, the ultimate retrodiction. The same thing is done when cosmologists use the model to interpret gravitational lensing effects, the SZ effect and other observations that they say give credibility to dark energy and dark matter. I do not say there is any attempt at fraud here. In fact, I say that they all are clearly acting as honest scientists. But, the scientists who reported positive cold fusion results were all honest too. They did not realize that there were inherent flaws in the neutron detection devices that they employed to observe "fusion" in deuterium oxide electrolysis cells using palladium electrodes. Honest scientists fall for pseudoscience too. But, fudge is fudge and no-one is immune to wishfull thinking. Perlmutter and Riess wished for a more exciting result and they got it.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Your three threads titled, "'MOND', Prelude to 'Critique of the Universe'", et al, have been merged into one topic. Please don't start multiple threads on the same subject as it makes it difficult to discuss.

[swansont]

MOND has been rejected because it addresses only some of the discrepancies that are observed.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/02/26/dark-matter-just-fine-thanks/

[imatfaal]

MOND is not entirely on the junk heap is it? It is clearly incomplete but is it quite as defunct as Sean blogged. Bekenstein has been stuck out on a limb before only to have mainstream move to him. Sean Carroll's stuff is amazing - but there did seem more than a usual bit of animus in that blog

[swansont]

MOND is not entirely on the junk heap is it? It is clearly incomplete but is it quite as defunct as Sean blogged. Bekenstein has been stuck out on a limb before only to have mainstream move to him. Sean Carroll's stuff is amazing - but there did seem more than a usual bit of animus in that blog

 

One of the things he points out is that MoND is not simply one model — it's a catch-all description of any non-Newtonian model. Thus far the proposals fall short, since they seemingly solve one problem but clearly cause problems elsewhere. That's not to say that some model will not one day be found to work, and AFAIK people continue to investigate. Because that's what scientists do.

[G Anthony]

MOND has been rejected because it addresses only some of the discrepancies that are observed.

 

http://blogs.discove...st-fine-thanks/

 

 

I reject it too. I only refer to MOND because Milgrom's residual centripetal acceleration constant that he says must apply at and beyond the peripheries of spiral galaxies is a hard observational result. It must be explained. Milgrom's modification of Netwonian dynamics begs the question: it is not an explanation. It is only a label. One can quibble over labels. Leave me out.

 

MOND is not entirely on the junk heap is it? It is clearly incomplete but is it quite as defunct as Sean blogged. Bekenstein has been stuck out on a limb before only to have mainstream move to him. Sean Carroll's stuff is amazing - but there did seem more than a usual bit of animus in that blog

 

 

As far as Dark Matter is concerned, I report only what Milgrom says he discovered after carefully considering data from many many spiral galaxies. He is a pro. He is a careful worker. I am saying only that he ignores the fact that nearly all spiral galaxies and most other types have supermassive black holes embedded in them. This makes a huge difference. Black holes and their interaction with the whole mass of the galactic disk will behave like a non-Newtonian entity having a gravitational potential that falls off as 1/r, not as 1/r^2 with effective M > or = 10^11 solar masses, in most cases.

 

Comparing a graph of this hyperbolic versus a Newtonian parabolic potential profile one sees that there is a virtually constant difference at large r. This is the source of Milgrom's residual centripetal acceleration constant that he says he sees in most of the galaxies he studied.

 

I am not arguing with Milgrom's findings. Far from it. I say he is probably right. But, he needs to consider the implications of the existence of relativistic supermassive black holes.

 

This comment is just that, a comment on the cosmological meaning of relativity in regard to black holes in galaxies.

 

Milgrom proposes a new model for gravity. He calls it modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND). But, MOND will require a rewrite of general relativity, one of the most validated theories in all science (only quantum mechanics is better verified). My comment leaves GR intact. My comment is simple, direct and jibes with the facts while being more parsimonious than MOND.

 

Milgrom wants to add his tiny, residual acceleration constant to Newton's Law. All I am saying is that it would be better to take into account the non-Newtonian hyperbolic black hole gravitational potential that general relativity says simply must exist in almost all spiral galaxies and also in other types of galaxies that may harbor black holes.

 

Galaxies that do not happen to show the MOND effect probably do not have supermassive black holes, or else their black holes have formed so recently that there has not been enough time for the effect to propagate all the way to and beyond the periphery.

 

Furthermore, the hyperbolic field effect must apply to the global, not merely the local, universe. It must have existed prior to the BB. It is the only thing that we can say that must have existed before Alan Guth's "inflation". When inflation got underway by means of statistical or probabilistic processes, this relativistic hyperbolic field must have begun to collapse or transition to a parabolic Newtonian field according to a time dependent process that is still going on. Subtle relativistic effects and gross direct effects of this ongoing process explain Dark Energy and Dark Matter completely way. They are unnecessary.

[swansont]

My comment leaves GR intact. My comment is simple, direct and jibes with the facts while being more parsimonious than MOND.

You haven't posted any "comment". You posted a link to a site that is an affront to my vision.

[G Anthony]

Speculation or fringe theory is really what we are all about here on this forum, no? In someway or another, this is true. If we were all in the business of writing texts, we would be paid. OR, we would pay journals to publish our junk if we wanted to propound fully qualified articles or developed papers. I understand Brian Greene's, Alan Guth's and other astrophysicists' descriptions perfectly well. But, I am not about to duplicate their formulations just to make a point. There is not enough space in the forum server for me to do this anyway.

 

Take my whistling in the wind for whatever it may NOT be worth. My MAIN POINT is always that the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole singular galactic gravitational field is acknowledged to be for real and is being ignored...

 

Now, if that other big unfalsifiable massive particle we call the Higgs Boson is the particle that imbues all other particles with their mass, what imbues the Higgs Boson with its mass?

 

Higgs theorists are pulling their "pud". The Higgs is an ad hoc addendum that is a poor band-aid for the kink it was supposed to fix. Just what was that, anyway? Oh yeah, no explanation of "mass" in the standard model.

 

Higgs is not really part of the standard model (yet). If the Higgs is not found, they will simply add in another ad hoc splint.The standard model will not collapse. Eventually, they'll get it right, though, I'll bet.

 

Funny, there is no explanation of the origin of gravity in GR either, only that it exists mathematically associated with mass. Why cannot we be satisfied with two sides to the same coin? Yin and Yang? If mass and gravity are two ways of looking at the same thing, is it not futile to try to merge them into one - when they are NOT one? OR, what if they are already merged as best they can be?

 

This implies quantum and GR are just "so" - two facets of the same reality. If we try to merge the two, we shall go blind. The GUT or TOE is a fantasy. What if I am right? Millions, perhaps billions more will be spent pursuing Harvey down his rabbit hole. We will get just a mouthful of mud

 

Much less mass, there is no validated implicit account of gravity in the standard model of particle physics either. If there is a Higgs boson and Higgs field, it should be possible to derive the existence of the full-fledged macroscopic gravitational field from them by means of the "correspondence principle". Then we shall have quantum gravity. Nah! Too easy. On the other hand ... Part B to follow as a reply:

 

But, as far as other unfalsifiable new hypothetical heavy bosons are concerned - try Alan Guth's "inflaton" particle: A hyper-massive excited particle in a humongously excited "inflaton field" that cannot be distinguished from gravity itself, except by its degree of excitation.

 

Suddenly, it decays. It decays into daughter particles and these then decay. Some of this decay debris has a long half-life. And enormous mass. The rest decays into matter and energy as we know it. But, the long half life particles remain as ultra-massive black holes. These decay, not via Hawking radiation, but by virtue of their intense infinitely deep singular gravitational fields that cause them to erupt into this same universe (somewhere "else").

 

They spew out smaller black holes and matter/energy detritus like a Roman candle. The daughter black holes they generate this way should follow a "normal" or "Poisson"distribution, perhaps. Statistically, this might be verified. It would take time for these BHs to start gathering in more matter to form full fledged galaxies. Some additional BHs may then form by accretion in the expected way. Perhaps this process would result in very ancient super-massive BH masses following a Poisson distribution, after all. If I was a mathematical physicist, I am sure I could derive it. But, I am just a modeler.

 

Now for Black-Hole existence: the singularity case of a mass with radius r = 0 is different, however. If one asks that the solutions to the simultaneous nonlinear differential equations in GR be valid for all r, one runs into a true physical singularity, or gravitational singularity, at the origin. To see that this is a true singularity one must look at quantities that are independent of the choice of coordinates. One such important quantity is the Kretschmann invariant (which says) at r = 0 the curvature blows up (becomes infinite) indicating the presence of a singularity. At this point, the metric, and space-time itself, is no longer well-defined, but not undefined.

 

For a long time it was thought that such a solution was non-physical. However, a greater understanding of general relativity led to the realization that such singularities were a generic feature of the GR theory and not just an exotic special case. Such solutions are now believed to actually exist and are termed black-holes. Because they certainly are gravitational singularities, they must have a unique gravitational potential field profile. By simple geometry, they must be distinguished by a hyperbolic (1/r) fall off in the gravitational field strength. This fact is currently being ignored.

 

F = GMm/kr, k = 1m (S.I., for dimensional integrity) means black-hole gravity falls off hyperbolically, not parabolically as according to Newton. This F equation is fully Newtonian, however. It just focuses on black-holes as being unique, and, of course, they are. Part C is in the next reply:

 

Mordechai Milgrom is a reputable careful worker. His data are used to support the idea of Dark Matter, not MOND. DM is taught not by him, though, he still teaches MOND. Where do we get Dark Matter from GR or from the standard theory of particle physics? Where? WIMPS are even more hypothetical and unfalsifiable. DM itself is just a patch used to fill in the blanks in Friedmann. If one can derive Newton from GR, then one can derive the hyperbolic 1/kr black-hole gravitational field using the right assumptions. These would be interesting in themselves...

 

Unfalsifiable hypotheses cannot be used to refute facts. TeVeS theory is such an hypothesis like quantum/GR hybrids all are. They have never predicted one single unique item and no such prediction has ever been verified. A theory that does not predict competently is not a theory and does not deserve the attention of mathematicians nor scientists.

 

All math, all science, is metaphor. All language is ultimately just metaphor. It is impossible to fully capture reality with any kind of human language. This is what many people mean when they claim that scientists are insufferably arrogant and grossly naive. These critics go too far, though. Then they claim science is Myth. They create this Myth. Let us endeavor not to do so ourselves.

replies consolidated...

Edited December 20, 2011 by G Anthony

[Tres Juicy]

Speculation or fringe theory is really what we are all about here on this forum, no? In someway or another, this is true. If we were all in the business of writing texts, we would be paid. OR, we would pay journals to publish our junk if we wanted to propound fully qualified articles or developed papers. I understand Brian Greene's, Alan Guth's and other astrophysicists' descriptions perfectly well. But, I am not about to duplicate their formulations just to make a point. There is not enough space in the forum server for me to do this anyway.

 

Take my whistling in the wind for whatever it may NOT be worth. My MAIN POINT is always that the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole singular galactic gravitational field is acknowledged to be for real and is being ignored...

 

Now, if that other big unfalsifiable massive particle we call the Higgs Boson is the particle that imbues all other particles with their mass, what imbues the Higgs Boson with its mass?

 

Higgs theorists are pulling their "pud". The Higgs is an ad hoc addendum that is a poor band-aid for the kink it was supposed to fix. Just what was that, anyway? Oh yeah, no explanation of "mass" in the standard model.

 

Higgs is not really part of the standard model (yet). If the Higgs is not found, they will simply add in another ad hoc splint.The standard model will not collapse. Eventually, they'll get it right, though, I'll bet.

 

Funny, there is no explanation of the origin of gravity in GR either, only that it exists mathematically associated with mass. Why cannot we be satisfied with two sides to the same coin? Yin and Yang? If mass and gravity are two ways of looking at the same thing, is it not futile to try to merge them into one - when they are NOT one? OR, what if they are already merged as best they can be?

 

This implies quantum and GR are just "so" - two facets of the same reality. If we try to merge the two, we shall go blind. The GUT or TOE is a fantasy. What if I am right? Millions, perhaps billions more will be spent pursuing Harvey down his rabbit hole. We will get just a mouthful of mud

 

Much less mass, there is no validated implicit account of gravity in the standard model of particle physics either. If there is a Higgs boson and Higgs field, it should be possible to derive the existence of the full-fledged macroscopic gravitational field from them by means of the "correspondence principle". Then we shall have quantum gravity. Nah! Too easy. On the other hand ... Part B to follow as a reply:

 

But, as far as other unfalsifiable new hypothetical heavy bosons are concerned - try Alan Guth's "inflaton" particle: A hyper-massive excited particle in a humongously excited "inflaton field" that cannot be distinguished from gravity itself, except by its degree of excitation.

 

Suddenly, it decays. It decays into daughter particles and these then decay. Some of this decay debris has a long half-life. And enormous mass. The rest decays into matter and energy as we know it. But, the long half life particles remain as ultra-massive black holes. These decay, not via Hawking radiation, but by virtue of their intense infinitely deep singular gravitational fields that cause them to erupt into this same universe (somewhere "else").

 

They spew out smaller black holes and matter/energy detritus like a Roman candle. The daughter black holes they generate this way should follow a "normal" or "Poisson"distribution, perhaps. Statistically, this might be verified. It would take time for these BHs to start gathering in more matter to form full fledged galaxies. Some additional BHs may then form by accretion in the expected way. Perhaps this process would result in very ancient super-massive BH masses following a Poisson distribution, after all. If I was a mathematical physicist, I am sure I could derive it. But, I am just a modeler.

 

Now for Black-Hole existence: the singularity case of a mass with radius r = 0 is different, however. If one asks that the solutions to the simultaneous nonlinear differential equations in GR be valid for all r, one runs into a true physical singularity, or gravitational singularity, at the origin. To see that this is a true singularity one must look at quantities that are independent of the choice of coordinates. One such important quantity is the Kretschmann invariant (which says) at r = 0 the curvature blows up (becomes infinite) indicating the presence of a singularity. At this point, the metric, and space-time itself, is no longer well-defined, but not undefined.

 

For a long time it was thought that such a solution was non-physical. However, a greater understanding of general relativity led to the realization that such singularities were a generic feature of the GR theory and not just an exotic special case. Such solutions are now believed to actually exist and are termed black-holes. Because they certainly are gravitational singularities, they must have a unique gravitational potential field profile. By simple geometry, they must be distinguished by a hyperbolic (1/r) fall off in the gravitational field strength. This fact is currently being ignored.

 

F = GMm/kr, k = 1m (S.I., for dimensional integrity) means black-hole gravity falls off hyperbolically, not parabolically as according to Newton. This F equation is fully Newtonian, however. It just focuses on black-holes as being unique, and, of course, they are. Part C is in the next reply:

 

Mordechai Milgrom is a reputable careful worker. His data are used to support the idea of Dark Matter, not MOND. DM is taught not by him, though, he still teaches MOND. Where do we get Dark Matter from GR or from the standard theory of particle physics? Where? WIMPS are even more hypothetical and unfalsifiable. DM itself is just a patch used to fill in the blanks in Friedmann. If one can derive Newton from GR, then one can derive the hyperbolic 1/kr black-hole gravitational field using the right assumptions. These would be interesting in themselves...

 

Unfalsifiable hypotheses cannot be used to refute facts. TeVeS theory is such an hypothesis like quantum/GR hybrids all are. They have never predicted one single unique item and no such prediction has ever been verified. A theory that does not predict competently is not a theory and does not deserve the attention of mathematicians nor scientists.

 

All math, all science, is metaphor. All language is ultimately just metaphor. It is impossible to fully capture reality with any kind of human language. This is what many people mean when they claim that scientists are insufferably arrogant and grossly naive. These critics go too far, though. Then they claim science is Myth. They create this Myth. Let us endeavor not to do so ourselves.

replies consolidated...

 

"Speculation or fringe theory is really what we are all about here on this forum"

 

No, that would be the speculations sub forum...

 

You can bash the standard model all you like, but it works quite well.

I would suggest if you have a better model up your sleeve, book yourself a ticket to Stockholm or, post it in the appropriate speculations sub forum and see how it holds up to scrutiny.

[MigL]

The Higgs boson does not imbue other particles with mass. It is the Higgs field which may perform this feat of magic through the Higgs mechanism ( look this stuff up ). The Higgs boson is just a manifestation of the field which,just like any other quantum field, produces a carrier boson. The boson, being easier to look for, would therefore, if found, validate the Higgs mechanism.