Paper detail

A Tale of Two Paradigms: the Mutual Incommensurability of LCDM and MOND

The concordance model of cosmology, LCDM, provides a satisfactory description of the evolution of the universe and the growth of large scale structure. Despite considerable effort, this model does not at present provide a satisfactory description of small scale structure and the dynamics of bound objects like individual galaxies. In contrast, MOND provides a unique and predictively successful description of galaxy dynamics, but is mute on the subject of cosmology. Here I briefly review these contradictory world views, emphasizing the wealth of distinct, interlocking lines of evidence that went into the development of LCDM while highlighting the practical impossibility that it can provide a satisfactory explanation of the observed MOND phenomenology in galaxy dynamics. I also briefly review the baryon budget in groups and clusters of galaxies where neither paradigm provides an entirely satisfactory description of the data. Relatively little effort has been devoted to the formation of structure in MOND; I review some of what has been done. The amplitude ratio of the first to second peak in the CMB power spectrum was correctly predicted a priori, but the third peak is more natural to LCDM. MOND anticipates that structure forms more quickly than in LCDM. This motivated the prediction that reionization would happen earlier in MOND than originally expected in LCDM, as subsequently observed. This also provides a natural explanation for massive, early clusters of galaxies and large, empty voids. However, it is far from obvious that the mass spectrum of galaxy clusters or the power spectrum of galaxies can be explained in MOND, two things that LCDM does well. Critical outstanding issues are the development of an acceptable relativistic parent theory for MOND, and the reality of the non-baryonic dark matter of LCDM. Do suitable dark matter particles exist, or are they a modern aether?

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author5 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.