It appears to be a MOND autumn in the science glossies, as Science publishes a review on our favourite alternative physics theory and the status of MOND like extensions to general relativity

Earlier we we had a nice little discussion about a paper bu Gentile et al in Nature on galaxy surface densities, with but an oblique hint at MOdified Newtonian Dynamics.

Now Ferreira and Starkman have a Review in Science (326 p812 [sub]), also as "Einstein's Theory of Gravity and the Problem of Missing Mass" Ferreira and Starkman, arXiv.0911.1212.

It is a nice sensible review, discussing both why MOND is considered, and its flaws; including the apparent need for dark matter as well as MOND to account for the dynamics of clusters of galaxies - although low mass neutrinos may suffice for clusters.

A more interesting aspect of the paper is a qualitative discussion of the Tensor-Vector-Scalar (TeVeS) and Generalized Einstein-Aether (GEA) theories.
In particular, even with the additional free parameters, such theories to make falsifiable predictions distinct from ΛCDM dark matter cosmological models.
There is also a brief allusion to the beyond Einstein f(R) theories invoked primarily to explain dark energy.

The original simple MOND is not viable as a general theory of gravity, but MOND like extension of general relativity are potentially interesting, falsifiable alternatives, and future surveys will provide data that will incidentally test these non-standard theories.
Most, or all, will likely prove false.
That is how it is supposed to work.


More like this

"The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it." -Alan Saporta One of the greatest puzzles in the Universe today is just why the Universe is structured the way it is. Image credit: Robert Gendler / Hubble Legacy Archive. For the individual galaxies that we see, the puzzle is why they…
There's a news squib from the Institutes of Physics this morning touting new results on a theory of modified gravity that the authors say can explain the structure of the universe without needing to invoke dark matter. This is a significant problem in cosmology, as the article explains: [O]ur…
Last week, Pamela Gay over at Star Stryder pointed me to a press release which claimed that, among other things, perhaps dark matter wasn't necessary. So I wrote a guest post on her blog explaining why it was. Apparently, some people still aren't convinced. So I will lay out for you all the reasons…
Earlier this week, I wrote about an article that appeared in Nature, New Scientist and other places. The article -- and especially the popular writeups -- talked about a problem with dark matter and how MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) solves those problems. And I'm livid about it. Another…