MOND is a non-starter which only a fringe obsesses over since it conflicts with relativity and was killed years ago by the very first multimessenger neutron binary merger:
Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Gravity
New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/trou...ives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/
That early galaxies grew faster than galaxy models account for has been confirmed by robust results from slightly lower redshifts (z ~7-9 instead of z > 10):
Challenge to Conventional Galaxy Formation Theories
According to the prevailing scientific model, galaxies gradually form within vast halos of dark matter, which draw in gas (atoms and molecules) to form gravitationally bound structures. Typically, only about 20% of this gas converts into stars within galaxies. However, the new observations from UNIGE’s team, utilizing NASA's James Webb Telescope (JWST), question this view. The data indicate that massive galaxies in the early Universe may have formed stars at a much higher rate than later galaxies, growing far more rapidly than once thought.
https://scitechdaily.com/mystery-of...s-massive-early-galaxies-that-shouldnt-exist/
Conveniently, the paper tests that the LCDM model is valid:
In this case, we do not find any galaxy with [efficiency (ϵ) of converting baryons into stars] ϵ > 1, suggesting that our sample does not present significant tension with the Λ cold dark-matter model (ΛCDM, where Λ is the cosmological constant).
That adds to the SPT microwave background radiation polarization survey, that prefers LCDM, increases the tension with supernova higher Hubble rate estimates to over 5 sigma, and increases the rejection of an inverted neutrino mass hierarchy.
https://phys.org/news/2024-11-latest-south-pole-telescope-bolster.html
Independent researchers, said decades ago that mond is better than dark matter, but fails like other modified newtonian fields. So they solved mond's poor math with a reinterpretation of newton's constant G and mass M. But this is censored sistematically.
If it is published in peer review, it obviously isn't censored. (And if it failed to pass that quality test, where is the problem!?) But it isn't very useful, especially if you add two unnecessary ad hoc parameters that LCDM and GR doesn't need.
I doubt that the notion would be compatible with relativity.
Is it possible that the reason the stars appear to be moving at the wrong speeds is that the stars near the galactic core experience time at a different rate then on the galactic rim?
But that isn't about the presented research, is it? It sounds like a proposal that MOND - if it had been acceptable as relativistic physics - explains something e.g. dark matter does not. But dark matter is observed by many other methods than galaxy rotation curves, which it
also predicts. Here we have instead that MOND additionally fails if galaxies do not contain much dark matter or much normal matter.
Yes, gravitational time dilation can be measured by optical astronomy but it would be a very weak effect. That is why dark matter and general relativity predicts our observations, not merely general relativity.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram