And what is the MOND theory, which this analysis seems to support?
In: 6
They’re not saying that gravity breaks down, they’re saying that our current model of gravity does not give the results that are observed in this case. This is similar to how a long time ago it was observed that Mercury’s orbit didn’t match what was predicted by Newton’s model of gravity and planetary orbits, which was an indication of general relativity.
Now this new paper doesn’t necessarily mean anything, because it is just one paper. Another paper could come along and say something completely different, or more papers could come along that back it up. We do not know, these things take time.
Assuming it is correct, it is an indication that our model of gravity (general relativity) is incomplete/incorrect. A small number of experts over the past several decades have worked on alternatives, and these are often referred to under the umbrella term of MOND, which means MOdified Newtonian Dynamics. It is called this because it starts off by taking Newton’s law of gravity and modifying the equation to something else.
The reason some people have been interested in MOND is because they believed it did away with the need for dark matter, however observations over the years have shown that this is not the case, and that even with MOND dark matter must still exist. This hasn’t stopped some people from still being interested in the possibility that MOND is still correct, even if it doesn’t do away with dark matter, and it would potentially reduce the amount of dark matter that must exist.
Latest Answers