Dark Matter and Dark Energy: What We Actually Know vs. What We Assume

The dark matter hypothesis is compelling, but it isn't the only way to explain flat galaxy rotation curves. There's a competing approach that has been surprisingly hard to kill off, despite decades of trying.

Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND, was proposed by Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom in 1983. The idea is simple to state: Newtonian gravity, which works perfectly well at the scales we can directly measure, might behave differently at the extremely low accelerations found in the outer regions of galaxies. Specifically, Milgrom proposed that below a certain threshold acceleration (about 1.2 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s²), the gravitational force falls off more slowly than the standard 1/r² relationship.

This seems like a strange ad hoc modification. But it has a track record that dark matter advocates don't always like to discuss.

MOND makes a specific prediction: the rotation curve of a galaxy should be determined entirely by its distribution of visible (baryonic) matter. No invisible dark matter halo needed — just tweak the gravity formula at low accelerations. When tested against galaxy rotation data, MOND turns out to be remarkably accurate for individual galaxies. The Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation, which correlates the total baryonic mass of a galaxy with its rotation speed, is predicted precisely by MOND and is something that standard dark matter models struggle to explain from first principles.

So why don't most cosmologists accept MOND?

Several reasons, and they're real. First, MOND is not a fully relativistic theory. Milgrom's original formulation is non-relativistic, which means it can't make predictions about gravitational lensing, the cosmic microwave background, or large-scale structure formation — all areas where the standard dark matter model (specifically, Cold Dark Matter or CDM) succeeds well. Various relativistic generalizations of MOND have been proposed, but they're all more complicated and none of them have won consensus.

Second, the Bullet Cluster. When two galaxy clusters pass through each other and the gravitational mass (from lensing) ends up separated from the baryonic mass (the gas), it's very hard to explain without some kind of dark matter that collides less than gas does. MOND advocates have proposed explanations, but they require additional assumptions.

Third, cosmological structure formation. The large-scale structure of the universe — the web of galaxy filaments and voids — matches predictions from Cold Dark Matter models with impressive precision. MOND doesn't naturally produce that structure without additional modifications.

The situation as of the mid-2020s is genuinely ambiguous at the individual galaxy scale and fairly unfavorable to MOND at cosmological scales. Relativistic MOND theories like RMOND and TeVeS and their successors are still being developed and tested, and some researchers argue that a theory accommodating both galaxy-scale successes of MOND and cosmological-scale successes of CDM might eventually emerge.

What MOND tells us, even if it turns out to be wrong, is that the dark matter evidence isn't as clean as textbook presentations suggest. The success of MOND at predicting galaxy rotation curves from baryonic mass alone is real and needs explaining even in a dark matter framework. Something about how dark matter distributes itself relative to visible matter seems suspiciously well-correlated. Whether this is a fundamental law or an emergent pattern from specific dark matter physics is one of the open questions.

MOND and the Alternatives — What If the Dark Matter Evidence Doesn't Require Dark Matter?

// COMMENTS

ON THIS PAGE