Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 188

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Field-theoretical formulations of MOND-like gravity

Open access
Bruneton, Jean-Philippe, Esposito-Farèse, Gilles·2007·Physical Review D
DOI 10.1103/physrevd.76.124012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) is a possible way to explain the flat galaxy rotation curves without invoking the existence of dark matter. It is, however, quite difficult to predict such a phenomenology in a consistent field theory, free of instabilities and admitting a well-posed Cauchy problem. We examine critically various proposals of the literature, and underline their successes and failures both from the experimental and the field-theoretical viewpoints. We exhibit new difficulties in both cases, and point out the hidden fine-tuning of some models. On the other hand, we show that several published no-go theorems are based on hypotheses which may be unnecessary, so that the space of possible models is a priori larger. We examine a new route to reproduce the MOND physics, in which the field equations are particularly simple outside matter. However, the analysis of the field equations within matter (a crucial point which is often forgotten in the literature) exhibits a deadly problem, namely, that they do not remain always hyperbolic. Incidentally, we prove that the same theoretical framework provides a stable and well-posed model able to reproduce the Pioneer anomaly without spoiling any of the precision tests of general relativity. Our conclusion is that all MOND-like models proposed in the literature, including the new ones examined in this paper, present serious difficulties: Not only they are unnaturally fine-tuned, but they also fail to reproduce some experimental facts or are unstable or inconsistent as field theories. However, some frameworks, notably the tensor-vector-scalar one of Bekenstein and Sanders, seem more promising than others, and our discussion underlines in which directions one should try to improve them.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.76.124012

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 188

Metadata

Authors
Bruneton, J.-P., & Esposito-Farèse, G.
Venue
Physical Review D
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2007-12-17
Volume
76
Issue
12
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
DOI
10.1103/physrevd.76.124012
OpenAlex
W2168028172
Cited by
188
References
21
FWCI
13.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.