Does MOND follow from the CDM paradigm?
Mordehai Milgrom (Weizmann Institute)

TL;DR
This paper critically examines claims that MOND can be derived from the CDM paradigm, arguing that the proposed derivation is phenomenologically incorrect and does not account for key observational features of galaxies.
Contribution
The paper refutes a recent claim that MOND follows from CDM by showing the derivation is inconsistent with observed galaxy properties and MOND phenomenology.
Findings
KT scenario cannot account for low-surface-brightness galaxies
Observed galaxy accelerations do not match the universal profile proposed by KT
CDM simulations do not reproduce MOND phenomenology
Abstract
In a recent paper, Kaplinghat and Turner (2001) (KT) advertise that MOND can be derived naturally in the CDM paradigm. They actually proceed to produce a more limited result: Every galaxy should have a transition radius, , below which baryons dominate, and above which dark matter (DM) takes over; the acceleration at is nearly the same for all galaxies; and due to a coincidences this is of order . This follows from their tacit, intermediate result, whereby CDM halos of galaxies have a very nearly universal acceleration profile , where A is universal, and only the scale varies from halo to halo. (This remains so when baryons are added because they assume a universal baryon-collapse factor.) The KT scenario is phenomenologically wrong--observed galaxies are simply not like that. For example, it precludes…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsCosmology and Gravitation Theories · Astronomy and Astrophysical Research · Computational Physics and Python Applications
