Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree8Likes
  • 6 Post By not_Fritz_Argelander
  • 1 Post By greqmaa
  • 1 Post By not_Fritz_Argelander

Thread: experimenter claims laboratory evidence for MOND

  1. #1
    not_Fritz_Argelander's Avatar
    not_Fritz_Argelander is offline HYPER GIANT
    Points: 175,065, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%
    Achievements:
    365 Days+ Registered Achievement!2 Posts Achievement20 Posts Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!First 1000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Thread Award
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    21,411
    Points
    175,065
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    7,174
    Thanked 45,205x 14,552 Posts
    Blog Entries
    59

    Default experimenter claims laboratory evidence for MOND



    https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.02604?fbc...0zUmAflpdL_xw0

    Recent experimental results for the gravitational constant G from Cavendish-type experiments were analysed in the framework of MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics). The basic assumption for the analysis is that MOND corrections apply only to the component of the gravitational field which leads to an accelerated motion of the pendulum body according to Newtons second law. The analysis is based on numerical solutions of the MOND corrected differential equation for a linear pendulum at small acceleration magnitudes of the order of Milgroms fundamental acceleration parameter a_0 = 10^-10 m/s^2 for the case of a mixed gravitational and electromagnetic pendulum restoring force. The results from the pendulum simulations were employed to fit experimental data from recent Cavendish-type experiments with reported discrepancies between G values determined by different measurement methods for a similar experimental setup, namely time of swing, angular acceleration feedback, electrostatic servo and static deflection methods. The analysis revealed that the reported discrepancies can be explained by MOND corrections with one single fit parameter. The MOND corrected results were found to be consistent with a value of G = 6.6742 x 10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 within a standard deviation of 14 ppm.
    I'm skeptical about the possibility of measurement errors. There are older results that are in tension with this finding. Like this one for instance:

    http://www.schlammi.com/pdf/nsl_revised.pdf
    Scopes: Refractors: Orion ST80 (mods for white light solar), SV ED80 f7 Newtonians: Z12 f5 Catadioptrics: VMC110L, Intes MK66 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binocular Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker III, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5, Orion Sirius EQG

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to not_Fritz_Argelander For This Useful Post:

    bladekeeper (01-11-2019),chas53 (01-14-2019),Gabby76 (01-10-2019),greqmaa (01-10-2019),helicon64 (01-10-2019),ic_1101 (01-10-2019)

  3. #2
    greqmaa's Avatar
    greqmaa is offline Main Sequence
    Points: 1,167, Level: 19
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 33
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    2 Posts Achievement20 Posts Achievement!5 Threads Achievement!50 Posts Achievement!200+ Posts Achievement!
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    138
    Points
    1,167
    Level
    19
    Thanks
    141
    Thanked 18x 18 Posts

    Default Re: experimenter claims laboratory evidence for MOND

    Thank you nFA for this links.
    Both theories are intriguing and I hope it will be known in my lifetime which theory(or both) is wrong.
    Greg

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to greqmaa For This Useful Post:

    chas53 (01-14-2019)

  5. #3
    not_Fritz_Argelander's Avatar
    not_Fritz_Argelander is offline HYPER GIANT
    Points: 175,065, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%
    Achievements:
    365 Days+ Registered Achievement!2 Posts Achievement20 Posts Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!First 1000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Thread Award
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    21,411
    Points
    175,065
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    7,174
    Thanked 45,205x 14,552 Posts
    Blog Entries
    59

    Default Re: experimenter claims laboratory evidence for MOND

    Quote Originally Posted by greqmaa View Post
    Thank you nFA for this links.
    Both theories are intriguing and I hope it will be known in my lifetime which theory(or both) is wrong.
    I would argue that it is already known that MOND is wrong. It fails many, many tests. For MOND to be OK it has to pass all of them.
    chas53 likes this.
    Scopes: Refractors: Orion ST80 (mods for white light solar), SV ED80 f7 Newtonians: Z12 f5 Catadioptrics: VMC110L, Intes MK66 EPs: KK Fujiyama Orthoscopics, 2x Vixen NPLs (40-6mm) and BCOs, Baader Mark IV zooms, TV Panoptics, Delos, Plossl 32-8mm. Mixed brand Masuyama/Astroplans Binocular Nikon Aculon 10x50, Celestron 15x70, Baader Maxbright. Mounts: Star Seeker III, Vixen Porta II, Celestron CG5, Orion Sirius EQG

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to not_Fritz_Argelander For This Useful Post:

    chas53 (01-14-2019)

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. laboratory test for Gravity
    By Shellshock187 in forum Astrophysics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-22-2015, 03:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:42 PM.