English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Angus et al. (2015) have recently faulted MOND as follows: Studying thirtydisc galaxies from the DiskMass survey, they derive the profiles of velocitydispersion perpendicular to the discs as predicted by MOND, $\sigma_M(r)$, andcompare them with $\sigma(r)$, measured as part of the DiskMass project. Thisis a new test of MOND, different from rotation-curve analysis. A nontrivialaccomplishment of MOND -- not discussed by Angus et al. -- is that the shapesof $\sigma_M$ and $\sigma$ agree very well, i.e,$\eta(r)\equiv\sigma_M(r)/\sigma(r)$ is well consistent with being$r$-independent (while $\sigma$ and $\sigma_M$ are strongly $r$ dependent). Thefault found with MOND was that $\eta$ is systematically above 1 (with anaverage of about 1.3). I have suggested to Angus et al. that the fault may liewith the DiskMass dispersions, which may well be too low for the purpose athand: Being based on population-integrated line profiles, they may beoverweighed by younger populations, known to have much smaller dispersions, andscale heights, than the older populations, which weigh more heavily on thelight distributions. I discuss independent evidence that supports this view,and show, besides, that if the DiskMas dispersions are underestimates by only25 %, on average, the MOND predictions are in full agreement with the data, inshape and magnitude. Now, Aniyan et al. (2015) have questioned the DiskMass$\sigma$ on the same basis. They show for the solar column in the Milky Waythat: " Combining the (single) measured velocity dispersion of the total young+ old disc population... with the scale height estimated for the olderpopulation would underestimate the disc surface density by a factor of $\sim2.$" If this mismatch found for the Milky Way is typical, correcting for itwould bring the measured DiskMass $\sigma(r)$ to a remarkable agreement withthe predicted MOND $\sigma_M(r)$.

Critical take on "Mass models of disk galaxies from the DiskMass Survey in MOND"