Slides of the Dark Matter Debate and of Robert Sanders' MOND Talk

On November 18th 2010, Pavel Kroupa and Simon White met in Bonn for a special Bethe Colloquium: “Dark Matter, a Debate”. While the video podcast is not available yet, there is a replay of the live blog. Furthermore, Pavel Kroupa’s presentation slides can be downloaded as a pdf file.

UPDATE Dec 8th: Simon White’s slides are now available at his website, too.

 

 

In addition to the debate on Thursday, Robert H. Sanders gave a talk about Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) the following Friday. His abstract reads:
Here I review the empirical basis of MOND.  I emphasize the success of the algorithm in predicting galaxy-scale phenomenology, not only the form of rotation curves but also galaxy scaling relationships and general trends. This success constitutes a fundamental challenge for dark matter that clusters on the scale of galaxies. I discuss the problems for MOND on larger scale and suggest possible resolutions of these issues.
We are happy that he agreed to make his slides public as well, for which we would like to thank him a lot. You can download his pdf file here. If you are looking for more information on the dark matter hypothesis, you might want to know that Robert Sanders wrote the book “The Dark Matter Problem: A Historical Perspective”, which was published by Cambridge University Press this year.
by Pavel Kroupa and Marcel Pawlowski (22.11.2010): “Slides of the Dark Matter Debate and of Robert Sanders’ MOND Talk” in “The Dark Matter Crisis – the rise and fall of a cosmological hypothesis” on SciLogs. See the overview of topics in  The Dark Matter Crisis.

Author: Marcel S. Pawlowski

I am a postdoc at the Department for Astronomy of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, OH (soon Hubble Fellow at UC Irvine). My work revolves around tidal dwarf galaxies – second-generation galaxies forming from the debris of galaxy collisions – and their use for testing models explaining the dark matter phenomenon. During my PhD studies in Bonn (in Pavel's group) my research concentrated on the phase-space distribution of the Milky Way's satellites (dwarf galaxies, globular clusters and tidal streams), their possible formation scenarios (in particular tidal dwarf galaxies) and tests of cosmological models on (cosmologically) small scales. My research interests are complemented by my interest in the philosophy of science and in science outreach. You can follow me on Twitter (@8minutesold) or find out more about me and my photography on my websites (http://marcelpawlowski.com & http://8minutesold.com).

3 thoughts on “Slides of the Dark Matter Debate and of Robert Sanders' MOND Talk”

  1. Its an artifact keeps a bad theory alive for centuries.It was the artifact of the earth rotating on its axis every 24 hours that gave observational support for the 1500- year-old geocentric Ptolemaic model. Could another artifact have kept the Newton/Einstein mass-based theory of gravity alive for the past 300 years?
    In his talk Pavel Kroupa writes:
    “Galileo’s solar system telescope data… are consistent with the Heliocentric model”
    You guys can talk, theorize,pontificate all you want but it was experiments like Foucault’s pendulum results and Galileo’s observations that finally did laid to rest the Ptolemaic system.
    There is a obvious artifact that is starring astronomers right in the face that may be needlessly keeping the Newtonian/Einsteinian mass-based gravity system alive:
    Its the Stefan-Boltzmann law which loosely interpreted says that ff a body has temperature it has radiation leaving it.
    Do we know for sure whether radiation is attractive or repulsive? The Nichols radiometer says its repulsive. The Crookes radiometer gives a result opposite to Nichols radiometer. Most astrophysical bodies have an atmosphere which suggest that the Crookes Radiometer might have something to say as to whether light is attractive or repulsive. But the radiometer is a dumb way to settle this issue. I have five experiments that show that luminosity is attractive (click my name). But all I get is “thought experiments” as to why my results are obviously wrong. What does the Tully-Fisher relation tell you? What does Renzo’s rule tell you? We have a full-blown artifact starring us right in the face concerning the long-lived, mass-based theories of Newton and Einstein and no one wants to face or do anything about it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s