Journal of Modern Physics
Vol.08 No.06(2017), Article ID:76504,4 pages
10.4236/jmp.2017.86057
Dark Matter versus MOND
T. R. Mongan
84 Marin Avenue, Sausalito, California, USA

Copyright © 2017 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/



Received: April 27, 2017; Accepted: May 23, 2017; Published: May 26, 2017
ABSTRACT
Many physicists believe dark matter accounts for flat velocity curves in spiral galaxies and find further evidence for dark matter in observations of the colliding “bullet cluster” galaxies 1E0657-56. Others claim a modified law of gravity called MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) explains galactic velocity curves better than dark matter. Merritt recently argued for MOND (arXiv:1703.02389) by claiming dark matter models cannot account for the MOND acceleration threshold
and the
(
) relation. However, this note shows that the HLSS model involving dark matter accounts for both the MOND acceleration and the (
) relation. After this paper was accepted for publication, I learned that Man Ho Chan previously reached the same conclusion (arXiv:1310.6801) using a dark matter based analysis independent of the holographic approach used in this paper.
Keywords:
Galactic Structure, Dark Matter, MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics)

1. Introduction
Dark matter is generally believed to account for the approximately flat velocity curves characteristic of spiral galaxies. Observations of the colliding “bullet cluster” galaxies 1E0657-56 provide further evidence for the existence of dark matter. However, some physicists believe the observed flat velocity curves indicate the law of gravity must be modified at large distances according to MOdified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). Recently Merritt [1] argued for MOND by claiming dark matter models cannot account for the acceleration threshold
and the (
) relation emerging from the MOND approach [2] .
2. Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the validity of Merritt’s claim by considering a specific model based on dark matter, the holographic large scale structure (HLSS) model [3] . The HLSS model was developed within the LCDM paradigm and employs the holographic principle based on thermodynamics and general relativity [4] . This note shows the HLSS model can account for both the MOND acceleration threshold and the (
) relation.
3. Analysis
In the HLSS model, galaxies with total mass
inhabit spherical holographic
screens with radius
if the Hubble constant
. The HLSS model considers galactic matter density
distributions
, where r is the distance from the galactic center.
The spherical isothermal halo of dark matter, with radius
and mass
, has density distribution
so the dark matter mass within radius R is
. There is no singularity in the galactic matter density distribution
because mass inside a core volume of
radius
at the galactic center is concentrated in a central black hole with
mass
[3] . Radial acceleration at radius R due to dark matter is then
. At radii R sufficiently distant from the galactic
center that total baryonic mass of the galaxy 
baryonic matter is


Since 


consistent with the MOND estimate
Another indication that the MOND acceleration 

Using
then yields
equal to the estimated MOND acceleration
The tangential velocity V at radius R is related to radial acceleration 


resulting in
Then, when
as noted by Merritt [1] . Next, using
and
results in
When 
again as noted by Merritt [1] . Since 



also known as the baryonic Tully-Fisher relation.
Finally, if the Hubble constant

and 

4. Conclusion
Contrary to Merritt’s claim [1] , this note demonstrates that the HLSS model [3] , based on dark matter, can account for the MOND acceleration threshold, the (
Acknowledgements
I thank the reviewer for important suggestions about how to improve the presentation of these results.
Cite this paper
Mongan, T.R. (2017) Dark Matter versus MOND. Journal of Modern Physics, 8, 919-922. https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2017.86057
References
- 1. Merritt, D. Cosmology and Convention. arXiv:1703.02389
- 2. Famaey, B. and Mc Gaugh, S. (2012) Living Reviews in Relativity, 15, 10. arXiv:1112:3960
- 3. Mongan, T.R. (2011) JMP, 2, 1544, and (2013) JMP, 4, 50.
- 4. Bousso, R. (2002) Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 825.
https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.825 - 5. Chan, M.H. (2013) Physical Review D, 88, 103501. arXiv:1310.6801
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.103501















