Here I provide links to some recent interviews on the subject. These are listed in chronological order, which happen to flow in order of increasing technical detail.
The first entry is from my colleague Federico Lelli. It is in Italian rather than English, but short and easy on the ears. If nothing else, appreciate that Dr. Lelli did this on the absence of sleep afforded a new father.
Next is an interview I did with EarthSky. I thought this went well, and should be reasonably accessible.
Most recently, there is the entry from the AAS Journal Author Series. These are based on papers published in the journals of the American Astronomical Society in which authors basically narrate their papers, so this goes through it at an appropriately high (ApJ) level.
We discuss the “little red dots” some, which touches on the issues of size evolution that were discussed in the comments previously. I won’t add to that here beyond noting again that the apparent size evolution is proportional to (1+z), in the sense that high redshift galaxies are apparently smaller than those of similar stellar mass locally. This (1+z) is the factor that relates the angular diameter distance of the Robsertson-Walker metric to that of Euclidean geometry. Consequently, we would not infer any size evolution if the geometry were Euclidean. It’s as if cosmology flunks the Tolman test. Weird.
There is a further element of mystery towards the end where the notion that “we don’t know why” comes up repeatedly. This is always true at some deep philosophical level, but it is also why we construct and test hypotheses. Why does MOND persistently make successful predictions that LCDM did not? Usually we say the reason why has to do with the successful hypothesis coming closer to the truth.
That’s it for now. There will be more to come as time permits.
I’ve been wanting to expand on the previous post ever since I wrote it, which is over a month ago now. It has been a busy end to the semester. Plus, there’s a lot to say – nothing that hasn’t been said before, somewhere, somehow, yet still a lot to cobble together into a coherent story – if that’s even possible. This will be a long post, and there will be more after to narrate the story of our big paper in the ApJ. My sole ambition here is to express the predictions of galaxy formation theory in LCDM and MOND in the broadest strokes.
A theory is only as good as its prior. We can always fudge things after the fact, so what matters most is what we predict in advance. What do we expect for the timescale of galaxy formation? To tell you what I’m going to tell you, it takes a long time to build a massive galaxy in LCDM, but it happens much faster in MOND.
Basic Considerations
What does it take to make a galaxy? A typical giant elliptical galaxy has a stellar mass of 9 x 1010 M☉. That’s a bit more than our own Milky Way, which has a stellar mass of 5 or 6 x 1010 M☉ (depending who you ask) with another 1010 M☉ or so in gas. So, in classic astronomy/cosmology style, let’s round off and say a big galaxy is about 1011 M☉. That’s a hundred billion stars, give or take.
An elliptical galaxy (NGC 3379, left) and two spiral galaxies (NGC 628 and NGC 891, right).
How much of the universe does it take to make one big galaxy? The critical density of the universe is the over/under point for whether an expanding universe expands forever, or has enough self-gravity to halt the expansion and ultimately recollapse. Numerically, this quantity is ρcrit = 3H02/(8πG), which for H0 = 73 km/s/Mpc works out to 10-29 g/cm3 or 1.5 x 10-7 M☉/pc3. This is a very small number, but provides the benchmark against which we measure densities in cosmology. The density of any substance X is ΩX = ρX/ρcrit. The stars and gas in galaxies are made of baryons, and we know the baryon density pretty well from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis: Ωb = 0.04. That means the average density of normal matter is very low, only about 4 x 10-31 g/cm3. That’s less than one hydrogen atom per cubic meter – most of space is an excellent vacuum!
This being the case, we need to scoop up a large volume to make a big galaxy. Going through the math, to gather up enough mass to make a 1011 M☉ galaxy, we need a sphere with a radius of 1.6 Mpc. That’s in today’s universe; in the past the universe was denser by (1+z)3, so at z = 10 that’s “only” 140 kpc. Still, modern galaxies are much smaller than that; the effective edge of the disk of the Milky Way is at a radius of about 20 kpc, and most of the baryonic mass is concentrated well inside that: the typical half-light radius of a 1011 M☉ galaxy is around 6 kpc. That’s a long way to collapse.
Monolithic Galaxy Formation
Given this much information, an early concept was monolithic galaxy formation. We have a big ball of gas in the early universe that collapses to form a galaxy. Why and how this got started was fuzzy. But we knew how much mass we needed and the volume it had to come from, so we can consider what happens as the gas collapses to create a galaxy.
Here we hit a big astrophysical reality check. Just how does the gas collapse? It has to dissipate energy to do so, and cool to form stars. Once stars form, they may feed energy back into the surrounding gas, reheating it and potentially preventing the formation of more stars. These processes are nontrivial to compute ab initio, and attempting to do so obsesses much of the community. We don’t agree on how these things work, so they are the knobs theorists can turn to change an answer they don’t like.
Even if we don’t understand star formation in detail, we do observe that stars have formed, and can estimate how many. Moreover, we do understand pretty well how stars evolve once formed. Hence a common approach is to build stellar population models with some prescribed star formation history and see what works. Spiral galaxies like the Milky Way formed a lot of stars in the past, and continue to do so today. To make 5 x 1010 M☉ of stars in 13 Gyr requires an average star formation rate of 4 M☉/yr. The current measured star formation rate of the Milky Way is estimated to be 2 ± 0.7 M☉/yr, so the star formation rate has been nearly constant (averaging over stochastic variations) over time, perhaps with a gradual decline. Giant elliptical galaxies, in contrast, are “red and dead”: they have no current star formation and appear to have made most of their stars long ago. Rather than a roughly constant rate of star formation, they peaked early and declined rapidly. The cessation of star formation is also called quenching.
A common way to formulate the star formation rate in galaxies as a whole is the exponential star formation rate, SFR(t) = SFR0 e-t/τ. A spiral galaxy has a low baseline star formation rate SFR0 and a long burn time τ ~ 10 Gyr while an elliptical galaxy has a high initial star formation rate and a short e-folding time like τ ~ 1 Gyr. Many variations on this theme are possible, and are of great interest astronomically, but this basic distinction suffices for our discussion here. From the perspective of the observed mass and stellar populations of local galaxies, the standard picture for a giant elliptical was a large, monolithic island universe that formed the vast majority of its stars early on then quenched with a short e-folding timescale.
Galaxies as Island Universes
The density parameter Ω provides another useful way to think about galaxy formation. As cosmologists, we obsess about the global value of Ω because it determines the expansion history and ultimate fate of the universe. Here it has a more modest application. We can think of the region in the early universe that will ultimately become a galaxy as its own little closed universe. With a density parameter Ω > 1, it is destined to recollapse.
A fun and funny fact of the Friedmann equation is that the matter density parameter Ωm → 1 at early times, so the early universe when galaxies form is matter dominated. It is also very uniform (more on that below). So any subset that is a bit more dense than average will have Ω > 1 just because the average is very close to Ω = 1. We can then treat this region as its own little universe (a “top-hat overdensity”) and use the Friedmann equation to solve for its evolution, as in this sketch:
The expansion of the early universe a(t) (blue line). A locally overdense region may behave as a closed universe, recollapsing in a finite time (red line) to potentially form a galaxy.
That’s great, right? We have a simple, analytic solution derived from first principles that explains how a galaxy forms. We can plug in the numbers to find how long it takes to form our basic, big 1011 M☉ galaxy and… immediately encounter a problem. We need to know how overdense our protogalaxy starts out. Is its effective initial Ωm = 2? 10? What value, at what time? The higher it is, the faster the evolution from initially expanding along with the rest of the universe to decoupling from the Hubble flow to collapsing. We know the math but we still need to know the initial condition.
Annoying Initial Conditions
The initial condition for galaxy formation is observed in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at z = 1090. Where today’s universe is remarkably lumpy, the early universe is incredibly uniform. It is so smooth that it is homogeneous and isotropic to one part in a hundred thousand. This is annoyingly smooth, in fact. It would help to have some lumps – primordial seeds with Ω > 1 – from which structure can grow. The observed seeds are too tiny; the typical initial amplitude is 10-5 so Ωm = 1.00001. That takes forever to decouple and recollapse; it hasn’t yet had time to happen.
The cosmic microwave background as observed by ESA’s Planck satellite. This is an all-sky picture of the relic radiation field – essentially a snapshot of the universe when it was just a few hundred thousand years old. The variations in color are variations in temperature which correspond to variations in density. These variations are tiny, only about one part in 100,000. The early universe was very uniform; the real picture is a boring blank grayscale. We have to crank the contrast way up to see these minute variations.
We would like to know how the big galaxies of today – enormous agglomerations of stars and gas and dust separated by inconceivably vast distances – came to be. How can this happen starting from such homogeneous initial conditions, where all the mass is equally distributed? Gravity is an attractive force that makes the rich get richer, so it will grow the slight initial differences in density, but it is also weak and slow to act. A basic result in gravitational perturbation theory is that overdensities grow at the same rate the universe expands, which is inversely related to redshift. So if we see tiny fluctuations in density with amplitude 10-5 at z = 1000, they should have only grown by a factor of 1000 and still be small today (10-2 at z = 0). But we see structures of much higher contrast than that. You can’t here from there.
The rich large scale structure we see today is impossible starting from the smooth observed initial conditions. Yet here we are, so we have to do something to goose the process. This is one of the original motivations for invoking cold dark matter (CDM). If there is a substance that does not interact with photons, it can start to clump up early without leaving too large a mark on the relic radiation field. In effect, the initial fluctuations in mass are larger, just in the invisible substance. (That’s not to say the CDM doesn’t leave a mark on the CMB; it does, but it is subtle and entirely another story.) So the idea is that dark matter forms gravitational structures first, and the baryons fall in later to make galaxies.
An illustration of the the linear growth of overdensities. Structure can grow in the dark matter (long dashed lines) with the baryons catching up only after decoupling (short dashed line). In effect, the dark matter gives structure formation a head start, nicely explaining the apparently impossible growth factor. This has been standard picture for what seems like forever (illustration from Schramm 1992).
With the right amount of CDM – and it has to be just the right amount of a dynamically cold form of non-baryonic dark matter (stuff we still don’t know actually exists) – we can explain how the growth factor is 105 since recombination instead of a mere 103. The dark matter got a head start over the stuff we can see; it looks like 105 because the normal matter lagged behind, being entangled with the radiation field in a way the dark matter was not.
This has been the imperative need in structure formation theory for so long that it has become undisputed lore; an element of the belief system so deeply embedded that it is practically impossible to question. I risk getting ahead of the story, but it is important to point out that, like the interpretation of so much of the relevant astrophysical data, this belief assumes that gravity is normal. This assumption dictates the growth rate of structure, which in turn dictates the need to invoke CDM to allow structure to form in the available time. If we drop this assumption, then we have to work out what happens in each and every alternative that we might consider. That definitely gets ahead of the story, so first let’s understand what we should expect in LCDM.
Hierarchical Galaxy formation in LCDM
LCDM predicts some things remarkably well but others not so much. The dark matter is well-behaved, responding only to gravity. Baryons, on the other hand, are messy – one has to worry about hydrodynamics in the gas, star formation, feedback, dust, and probably even magnetic fields. In a nutshell, LCDM simulations are very good at predicting the assembly of dark mass, but converting that into observational predictions relies on our incomplete knowledge of messy astrophysics. We know what the mass should be doing, but we don’t know so well how that translates to what we see. Mass good, light bad.
Starting with the assembly of mass, the first thing we learn is that the story of monolithic galaxy formation outlined above has to be wrong. Early density fluctuations start out tiny, even in dark matter. God didn’t plunk down island universes of galaxy mass then say “let there be galaxies!” The annoying initial conditions mean that little dark matter halos form first. These subsequently merge hierarchically to make ever bigger halos. Rather than top-down monolithic galaxy formation, we have the bottom-up hierarchical formation of dark matter halos.
Examples of merger trees from the TNG50-1 simulation (Pillepich et al. 2019; Nelson et al. 2019). Objects have been selected to have very nearly the same stellar mass at z=0. Mass is built up through a series of mergers. One large dark matter halo today (at top) has many antecedents (small halos at bottom). These merge hierarchically as illustrated by the connecting lines.The size of the symbol is proportional to the halo mass.I have added redshift and the corresponding age of the universe for vanilla LCDM in a more legible font. The color bar illustrates the specific star formation rate: the top row has objects that are still actively star forming like spirals; those in the bottom row are “red and dead” – things that have stopped forming stars, like giant elliptical galaxies. In all cases, there is a lot of merging and a modest rate of growth, with the typical object taking about half a Hubble time (~7 Gyr) to assemble half of its final stellar mass.
The hierarchical assembly of mass is generic in CDM. Indeed, it is one of its most robust predictions. Dark matter halos start small, and grow larger by a succession of many mergers. This gradual agglomeration is slow: note how tiny the dark matter halos at z = 10 are.
Strictly speaking, it isn’t even meaningful to talk about a single galaxy over the span of a Hubble time. It is hard to avoid this mental trap: surely the Milky Way has always been the Milky Way? so one imagines its evolution over time. This is monolithic thinking. Hierarchically, “the galaxy” refers at best to the largest progenitor, the object that traces the left edge of the merger trees above. But the other protogalactic chunks that eventually merge together are as much part of the final galaxy as the progenitor that happens to be largest.
This complicated picture is complicated further by what we can see being stars, not mass. The luminosity we observe forms through a combination of in situ growth (star formation in the largest progenitor) and ex situ growth through merging. There is no reason for some preferred set of protogalaxies to form stars faster than the others (though of course there is some scatter about the mean), so presumably the light traces the mass of stars formed traces the underlying dark mass. Presumably.
That we should see lots of little protogalaxies at high redshift is nicely illustrated by this lookback cone from Yung et al (2022). Here the color and size of each point corresponds to the stellar mass. Massive objects are common at low redshift but become progressively rare at high redshift, petering out at z > 4 and basically absent at z = 10. This realization of the observable stellar mass tracks the assembly of dark mass seen in merger trees.
Fig. 2 from Yung et al. (2022)illustrating what an observer would see looking back through their simulation to high redshift.
This is what we expect to see in LCDM: lots of small protogalaxies at high redshift; the building blocks of later galaxies that had not yet merged. The observation of galaxies much brighter than this at high redshift by JWST poses a fundamental challenge to the paradigm: mass appears not to be subdivided as expected. So it is entirely justifiable that people have been freaking out that what we see are bright galaxies that are apparently already massive. That shouldn’t happen; it wasn’t predicted to happen; how can this be happening?
That’s all background that is assumed knowledge for our ApJ paper, so we’re only now getting to its Figure 1. This combines one of the merger trees above with its stellar mass evolution. The left panel shows the assembly of dark mass; the right pane shows the growth of stellar mass in the largest progenitor. This is what we expect to see in observations.
Fig. 1 from McGaugh et al (2024): A merger tree for a model galaxy from the TNG50-1 simulation (Pillepich et al. 2019; Nelson et al. 2019, left panel) selected to have M∗ ≈ 9 × 1010 M⊙ at z = 0; i.e., the stellar mass of a local L∗ giant elliptical galaxy (Driver et al. 2022). Mass assembles hierarchically, starting from small halos at high redshift (bottom edge) with the largest progenitor traced along the left of edge of the merger tree. The growth of stellar mass of the largest progenitor is shown in the right panel. This example (jagged line) is close to the median (dashed line) of comparable mass objects (Rodriguez-Gomez et al. 2016), and within the range of the scatter (the shaded band shows the 16th – 84th percentiles). A monolithic model that forms at zf = 10 and evolves with an exponentially declining star formation rate with τ = 1 Gyr (purple line) is shown for comparison. The latter model forms most of its stars earlier than occurs in the simulation.
For comparison, we also show the stellar mass growth of a monolithic model for a giant elliptical galaxy. This is the classic picture we had for such galaxies before we realized that galaxy formation had to be hierarchical. This particular monolithic model forms at zf = 10 and follows an exponential star formation rate with τ = 1 Gyr. It is one of the models published by Franck & McGaugh (2017). It is, in fact, the first model I asked Jay to construct when he started the project. Not because we expected it to best describe the data, as it turns out to do, but because the simple exponential model is a touchstone of stellar population modeling. It was a starter model: do this basic thing first to make sure you’re doing it right. We chose τ = 1 Gyr because that was the typical number bandied about for elliptical galaxies, and zf = 10 because that seemed ridiculously early for a massive galaxy to form. At the time we built the model, it was ludicrously early to imagine a massive galaxy would form, from an LCDM perspective. A formation redshift zf = 10 was, less than a decade ago, practically indistinguishable from the beginning of time, so we expected it to provide a limit that the data would not possibly approach.
In a remarkably short period, JWST has transformed z = 10 from inconceivable to run of the mill. I’m not going to go into the data yet – this all-theory post is already a lot – but to offer one spoiler: the data are consistent with this monolithic model. If we want to “fix” LCDM, we have to make the red line into the purple line for enough objects to explain the data. That proves to be challenging. But that’s moving the goalposts; the prediction was that we should see little protogalaxies at high redshift, not massive, monolith-style objects. Just look at the merger trees at z = 10!
Accelerated Structure Formation in MOND
In order to address these issues in MOND, we have to go back to the beginning. What is the evolution of a spherical region (a top-hat overdensity) that might collapse to form a galaxy? How does a spherical region under the influence of MOND evolve within an expanding universe?
The solution to this problem was first found by Felten (1984), who was trying to play the Newtonian cosmology trick in MOND. In conventional dynamics, one can solve the equation of motion for a point on the surface of a uniform sphere that is initially expanding and recover the essence of the Friedmann equation. It was reasonable to check if cosmology might be that simple in MOND. It was not. The appearance of a0 as a physical scale makes the solution scale-dependent: there is no general solution that one can imagine applies to the universe as a whole.
Felten reasonably saw this as a failure. There were, however, some appealing aspects of his solution. For one, there was no such thing as a critical density. All MOND universes would eventually recollapse irrespective of their density (in the absence of the repulsion provided by a cosmological constant). It could take a very long time, which depended on the density, but the ultimate fate was always the same. There was no special value of Ω, and hence no flatness problem. The latter obsessed people at the time, so I’m somewhat surprised that no one seems to have made this connection. Too soon*, I guess.
There it sat for many years, an obscure solution for an obscure theory to which no one gave credence. When I became interested in the problem a decade later, I started methodically checking all the classic results. I was surprised to find how many things we needed dark matter to explain were just as well (or better) explained by MOND. My exact quote was “surprised the bejeepers out of us.” So, what about galaxy formation?
I started with the top-hat overdensity, and had the epiphany that Felten had already obtained the solution. He had been trying to solve all of cosmology, which didn’t work. But he had solved the evolution of a spherical region that starts out expanding with the rest of the universe but subsequently collapses under the influence of MOND. The overdensity didn’t need to be large, it just needed to be in the low acceleration regime. Something like the red cycloidal line in the second plot above could happen in a finite time. But how much?
The solution depends on scale and needs to be solved numerically. I am not the greatest programmer, and I had a lot else on my plate at the time. I was in no rush, as I figured I was the only one working on it. This is usually a good assumption with MOND, but not in this case. Bob Sanders had had the same epiphany around the same time, which I discovered when I received his manuscript to referee. So all credit is due to Bob: he said these things first.
First, he noted that galaxy formation in MOND is still hierarchical. Small things form first. Crudely speaking, structure formation is very similar to the conventional case, but now the goose comes from the change in the force law rather than extra dark mass. MOND is nonlinear, so the whole process gets accelerated. To compare with the linear growth of CDM:
A sketch of how structures grow over time under the influence of cold dark matter (left, from Schramm 1992, same as above) and MOND (right, from Sanders & McGaugh 2002; see also this further discussion and previous post). The slow linear growth of CDM (long-dashed line, left panel) is replaced by a rapid, nonlinear growth in MOND (solid lines at right; numbers correspond to different scales). Nonlinear growth moderates after cosmic expansion begins to accelerate (dashed vertical line in right panel).
The net effect is the same. A cosmic web of large scale structure emerges. They look qualitatively similar, but everything happens faster in MOND. This is why observations have persistently revealed structures that are more massive and were in place earlier than expected in contemporaneous LCDM models.
Simulated structure formation in ΛCDM (top) and MOND (bottom) showing the more rapid emergence of similar structures in MOND (note the redshift of each panel). From McGaugh (2015).
In MOND, small objects like globular clusters form first, but galaxies of a range of masses all collapse on a relatively short cosmic timescale. How short? Let’s consider our typical 1011 M☉ galaxy. Solving Felten’s equation for the evolution of a sphere numerically, peak expansion is reached after 300 Myr and collapse happens in a similar time. The whole galaxy is in place speedy quick, and the initial conditions don’t really matter: a uniform, initially expanding sphere in the low acceleration regime will behave this way. From our distant vantage point thirteen billion years later, the whole process looks almost monolithic (the purple line above) even though it is a chaotic hierarchical mess for the first few hundred million years (z > 14). In particular, it is easy to form half of the stellar mass early on: the mass is already assembled.
The evolution of a 1011M⊙ sphere that starts out expanding with the universe but decouples and collapses under the influence of MOND (dotted line). It reaches maximum expansion after 300 Myr and recollapses in a similar time, so the entire object is in place after 600 Myr. (A version of this plot with a logarithmic time axis appears as Fig. 2 in our paper.) The inset shows the evolution of smaller shells within such an object (Fig. 2 from Sanders 2008). The inner regions collapse first followed by outer shells. These oscillate and cross, mixing and ultimately forming a reasonable size galaxy – see Sanders’s Table 1 and also his Fig. 4 for the collapse times for objects of other masses. These early results are corroborated by Eappen et al. (2022), who further demonstrate that the details of feedback are not important in MOND, unlike LCDM.
*I am not quite this old: I was still an undergraduate in 1984. I hadn’t even decided to be an astronomer at that point; I certainly hadn’t started following the literature. The first time I heard of MOND was in a graduate course taught by Doug Richstone in 1988. He only mentioned it in passing while talking about dark matter, writing the equation on the board and saying maybe it could be this. I recall staring at it for a long few seconds, then shaking my head and muttering “no way.” I then completely forgot about it, not thinking about it again until it came up in our data for low surface brightness galaxies. I expect most other professionals have the same initial reaction, which is fair. The test of character comes when it crops up in their data, as it is doing now for the high redshift galaxy community.
The time is approaching when Nobel prizes are awarded. This inevitably leads to a lot of speculation and chattering rumor. Last year one publication, I think it was Physics Today, went so far as to publish a list of things various people thought should be recognized. This aspirational list was led, of course, by dark matter. It was even formatted the way prize awards are phrased, saying something like “the prize goes to [blank] for the discovery of dark matter.” This would certainly be a prize-worthy discovery, if made. So far it hasn’t been, and I expect it never will be: blank will remain blank forever. I’d be happy to be proved wrong, as forever is a long time to wait for corroboration of this prediction.
While the laboratory detection of dark matter is a slam-dunk for a Nobel prize, there are plenty of discoveries that drive the missing mass problem that are already worthy of this recognition. The issue is too big for a single prize. Laboratory detection would be the culmination of a search that has been motivated by astronomical observations. The Nobel prize in physics has sometimes been awarded for astronomical discoveries – and should be, for those that impact fundamental physics or motivate entire fields like the search for dark matter – so let’s think about what those might be.
An obvious historical example would be Kepler’s Laws. Kepler predates Nobel by a few centuries, but there is no doubt that his identification of the eponymous laws of planetary motion impacted fundamental physics, being one of the key set of facts that led Newton to his universal law of gravity. Whether Tycho Brahe should also be named as the person who made the observations on which Kepler’s work is based is the sort of question the prize committee has to wrestle with. I would say yes: the prize is for “the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics.” In this case, the discovery that led to gravity was a set of rules – how the orbits of planets behave – that required both observational work (Brahe’s) and numerical analysis (Kepler’s) to achieve.
One could of course also give a prize to Newton some decades later, though theories are not generally considered discoveries. The line can be hazy. For example, the Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein “for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.” The “especially” is reserved for the empirical law, not relativity, though I guess “services to theoretical physics” is doing a lot of work there.
Reading up on that I was mildly surprised to learn that the committee had a hard time finding deserving recipients, initially skipping 1918 and 1921 but awarding those prizes in the subsequent year to Planck and Einstein, respectively. I wonder if they struggled with the definition of discovery: need it be experimental? For many, the answer is yes. A theory by itself, untethered from experimental or observational corroboration, does not a discovery make.
I don’t think they need to skip years any more, as the list of plausible nominees has grown so long that deserving people die waiting to be recognized: the Nobel prize is not awarded posthumously. The story is that this is what happened to both Henrietta Leavitt (who discovered the Cepheid period-luminosity relation) and Edwin Hubble (who used Leavitt’s relation for Cepheids to measure distances to other galaxies, thereby changing the course of cosmology). There is also the issue of what counts as physics. At the time, these were very astronomical discoveries. In retrospect, it is obvious that the impact Hubble had on cosmology counts as physics as well.
The same can be said for the discovery of flat rotation curves. I have made the case before that Vera Rubin and Albert Bosma (and arguably others) deserve the Nobel prize for this discovery. Note that I do not say the discovery of dark matter, because (1) that’s not what they did*, and (2) flat rotation curves are enough. Flat rotation curves are a de facto law of nature. That’s enough, every bit as much as Einstein’s “discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect.” A laboratory detection of dark matter would be another discovery worthy of a Nobel prize, but we already missed out on recognizing Rubin for this one.
Conflating discoveries with their interpretation has precluded recognition of other important astronomical discoveries – discoveries that implicate basic physics regardless of their ultimate interpretation, be it cold dark matter or MOND or something else we have yet to figure out. So, what are some others?
Philip Mannheim pointed out to me that Milgrom deserves the prize for the discovery of the acceleration scale a0. This is a new constant of nature. That’s enough.
Milgrom went further, developing the whole MOND paradigm around this new scale. But that is extra credit material that needn’t be correct. Unfortunately, the controversial nature of MOND, deserved or not, serves to obscure that there is a new constant of nature whose discovery is analogous to Planck’s discovery of his eponymous constant. People argue over whether a0 is a single constant (it is) or whether it evolves over cosmic time (not so far as I can tell). The latter objection could be raised for Planck’s constant or Newton’s constant; these were established when it wasn’t possible to test whether their values might have varied over cosmic time. Now that we can, we do check! and so far, no: h, G, and a0 all appear to be constants of nature, to the extent we are able to perceive.
The above discoveries are all worthy of recognition by a Nobel prize. They are all connected by the radial acceleration relation, which is another worthy observational discovery in its own right. This is one that clearly transgresses the boundaries of physics and astronomy, as the early versions (Sanders 1990, McGaugh 1999, 2004) appeared in the astronomical literature, but more recent ones in the physics literature (McGaugh et al. 2016, Mistele et al. 2024). Sadly, the community seems perpetually stuck looping through the stages of Louis Agassiz‘s progression of responses to scientific discoveries. It shouldn’t be: this is an empirical relation that has long been well established and repeatedly confirmed. It suffers from association with MOND, but no reference to MOND is made in the construction of the observed relation. It’s right there in the data:
The radial acceleration relation as traced by both early (red) and late (cyan) type galaxies via both kinematics and gravitational lensing. The low acceleration behavior maps smoothly onto the Newtonian behavior seen in the solar system at higher accelerations. If Newton’s discovery of the inverse square force law would warrant a Nobel prize, as surely it would had the prize existed in Newton’s time, then so does the discovery of a systematically new behavior.
*Rubin and Bosma both argued, sensibly, that the interpretation of flat rotation curves required dark matter. That’s an interpretation, not a discovery. That rotation curves were flat, over and over again in every galaxy examined, to indefinitely large radii, was the observational discovery.
The history of science is a decision tree. Vertices appear where we must take one or another branching. Sometimes, we take the wrong road for the right reasons.
A good example is the geocentric vs. heliocentric cosmology. The ancient Greeks knew that in many ways it made more sense for the earth to revolve around the sun than vice-versa. Yet they were very clever. Ptolemy and others tested for the signature of the earth’s orbit in the seasonal wobbling in the positions of stars, or parallax. If the earth is moving around the sun, nearby stars should appear to move on the sky as the earth moves from one side of the sun to the other. Try blinking back and forth between your left and right eyes to see this effect, noting how nearby objects appear to move relative to distant ones.
Problem is, Ptolemy did not find the parallax. Quite reasonably, he inferred that the earth stayed put. We know now that this was the wrong branch to choose, but it persisted as the standard world view for many centuries. It turns out that even the nearest stars are so distant that their angular parallax is tiny (the angle of parallax is inversely proportional to distance). Precision sufficient for measuring the parallax was not achieved until the 19th century, by which time astronomers were already convinced it must happen.
Ptolemy was probably aware of this possibility, though it must have seemed quite unreasonable to conjecture at that time that the stars could be so very remote. The fact was that parallax was not observed. Either the earth did not move, or the stars were ridiculously distant. Which sounds more reasonable to you?
So, science took the wrong branch. Once this happened, sociology kicked in. Generation after generation of intelligent scholars confirmed the lack of parallax until the opposing branch seemed so unlikely that it became heretical to even discuss. It is very hard to reverse back up the decision tree and re-assess what seems to be such a firm conclusion. It took the Copernican revolution to return to that ancient decision branch and try the other one.
Cosmology today faces a similar need to take a few steps back on the decision tree. The problem now is the issue of the mass discrepancy, typically attributed to dark matter. When it first became apparent that things didn’t add up when one applied the usual Law of Gravity to the observed dynamics of galaxies, there was a choice. Either lots of matter is present which happens to be dark, or the Law of Gravity has to be amended. Which sounds more reasonable to you?
Having traveled down the road dictated by the Dark Matter decision branch, cosmologists find themselves trapped in a web of circular logic entirely analogous to the famous Ptolemaic epicycles. Not many of them realize it yet, much less admit that this is what is going on. But if you take a few steps back up the decision branch, you find a few attempts to alter the equations of gravity. Most of these failed almost immediately, encouraging cosmologists down the dark matter path just as Ptolemy wisely chose a geocentric cosmology. However, one of these theories is not only consistent with the data, it actually predicts many important new results. This theory is known as MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics). It was introduced in 1983 by Moti Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute in Israel.
MOND accurately describes the effective force law in galaxies based only on the observed stars and gas. What this means is unclear, but it clearly means something! It is conceivable that dark and luminous matter somehow interact to mimic the behavior stipulated by MOND. This is not expected, and requires a lot of epicyclic thinking to arrange. The more straightforward interpretation is that MOND is correct, and we took the wrong branch of the decision tree back in the ’70s.
MOND has dire implications for much modern cosmological thought which has developed symbiotically with dark matter. As yet, no one has succeeded in writing down a theory which encompasses both MOND and General Relativity. This leaves open many questions in cosmology that were thought to be solved, such as the expansion history of the universe. There is nothing a scientist hates to do more than unlearn what was thought to be well established. It is this sociological phenomenon that makes it so difficult to climb back up the decision tree to the faulty branching.
Once one returns and takes the correct branch, the way forward is not necessarily obvious. The host of questions which had been assigned seemingly reasonable explanations along the faulty branch must be addressed anew. And there will always be those incapable of surrendering the old world view irrespective of the evidence.
In my opinion, the newsuccesses of MOND can not occur by accident. They are a strong sign that we are barking up the wrong tree with dark matter. A grander theory encompassing both MOND and General Relativity must exist, even if no one has as yet been clever enough to figure it out (few have tried).
These all combine to make life as a cosmologist interesting. Sometimes it is exciting. Often it is frustrating. Most of the time, “interesting” takes on the meaning implied by the old Chinese curse:
MAY YOU LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES
Like it or not, we do.
*I wrote this in 2000. I leave it to the reader to decide how much progress has been made since then.
The results from the high redshift universe keep pouring in from JWST. It is a full time job, and then some, just to keep track. One intriguing aspect is the luminosity density of the universe at z > 10. I had not thought this to be problematic for LCDM, as it only depends on the overall number density of stars, not whether they’re in big or small galaxies. I checked this a couple of years ago, and it was fine. At that point we were limited to z < 10, so what about higher redshift?
It helps to have in mind the contrasting predictions of distinct hypotheses, so a quick reminder. LCDM predicts a gradual build up of the dark matter halo mass function that should presumably be tracked by the galaxies within these halos. MOND predicts that galaxies of a wide range of masses form abruptly, including the biggest ones. The big distinction I’ve focused on is the formation epoch of the most massive galaxies. These take a long time to build up in LCDM, which typically takes half a Hubble time (~7 billion years; z < 1) for a giant elliptical to build up half its final stellar mass. Baryonic mass assembly is considerably more rapid in MOND, so this benchmark can be attained much earlier, even within the first billion years after the Big Bang (z > 5).
In both theories, astrophysics plays a role. How does gas condense into galaxies, and then form into stars? Gravity just tells us when we can assemble the mass, not how it becomes luminous. So the critical question is whether the high redshift galaxies JWST sees are indeed massive. They’re much brighter than had been predicted by LCDM, and in-line with the simplest models evolutionary models one can build in MOND, so the latter is the more natural interpretation. However, it is much harder to predict how many galaxies form in MOND; it is straightforward to show that they should form fast but much harder to figure out how many do so – i.e., how many baryons get incorporated into collapsed objects, and how many get left behind, stranded in the intergalactic medium? Consequently, the luminosity density – the total number of stars, regardless of what size galaxies they’re in – did not seem like a straight-up test the way the masses of individual galaxies is.
It is not difficult to produce lots of stars at high redshift in LCDM. But those stars should be in many protogalactic fragments, not individually massive galaxies. As a reminder, here is the merger tree for a galaxy that becomes a bright elliptical at low redshift:
Merger tree from De Lucia & Blaizot 2007 showing the hierarchical build-up of massive galaxies from many protogalactic fragments.
At large lookback times, i.e., high redshift, galaxies are small protogalactic fragments that have not yet assembled into a large island universe. This happens much faster in MOND, so we expect that for many (not necessarily all) galaxies, this process is basically complete after a mere billion years or so, often less. In both theories, your mileage will vary: each galaxy will have its own unique formation history. Nevertheless, that’s the basic difference: big galaxies form quickly in MOND while they should still be little chunks at high z in LCDM.
The hierarchical formation of structure is a fundamental prediction of LCDM, so this is in principle a place it can break. That is why many people are following the usual script of blaming astrophysics, i.e., how stars form, not how mass assembles. The latter is fundamental while the former is fungible.
Gradual mass assembly is so fundamental that its failure would break LCDM. Indeed, it is so deeply embedded in the mental framework of people working on it that it doesn’t seem to occur to most of them to consider the possibility that it could work any other way. It simply has to work that way; we were taught so in grad school!
Here is a sketch of how structures grow over time under the influence of cold dark matter (left, from Schramm 1992) and MOND (right, from Sanders & McGaugh 2002; see also this further discussion). The slow linear growth of CDM (long-dashed line, left panel) is replaced by a rapid, nonlinear growth in MOND (solid lines at right; numbers correspond to different scales). Nonlinear growth moderates after cosmic expansion begins to accelerate (dashed vertical line in right panel).
A principle result in perturbation theory applied to density fluctuations in an expanding universe governed by General Relativity is that the growth rate of these proto-objects is proportional to the expansion rate of the universe – hence the linear long-dashed line in the left diagram. The baryons cannot match the observations by themselves because the universe has “only” expanded by a factor of a thousand since recombination while structure has grown by a factor of a hundred thousand. This was one of the primary motivations for inventing cold dark matter in the first place: it can grow at the theory-specified rate without obliterating the observed isotropy% of the microwave background. The skeletal structure of the cosmic web grows in cold dark matter first; the baryons fall in afterwards (short-dashed line in left panel).
That’s how it works. Without dark matter, structure cannot form, so we needn’t consider MOND nor speak of it ever again forever and ever, amen.
Except, of course, that isn’t necessarily how structure formation works in MOND. Like every other inference of dark matter, the slow growth of perturbations assumes that gravity is normal. If we consider a different force law, then we have to revisit this basic result. Exactly how structure formation works in MOND is not a settled subject, but the panel at right illustrates how I think it might work. One seemingly unavoidable aspect is that MOND is nonlinear, so the growth rate becomes nonlinear at some point, which is rather early on if Milgrom’s constant a0 does not evolve. Rather than needing dark matter to achieve a growth factory of 105, the boost to the force law enables baryons do it on their own. That, in a nutshell, is why MOND predicts the early formation of big galaxies.
The same nonlinearity that makes structure grow fast in MOND also makes it very hard to predict the mass function. My nominal expectation is that the present-day galaxy baryonic mass function is established early and galaxies mostly evolve as closed boxes after that. Not exclusively; mergers still occasionally happen, as might continued gas accretion. In addition to the big galaxies that form their stars rapidly and eventually become giant elliptical galaxies, there will also be a population for which gas accretion is gradual^ enough to settle into a preferred plane and evolve into a spiral galaxy. But that is all gas physics and hand waving; for the mass function I simply don’t know how to extract a prediction from a nonlinear version of the Press-Schechter formalism. Somebody smarter than me should try that.
We do know how to do it for LCDM, at least for the dark matter halos, so there is a testable prediction there. The observable test depends on the messy astrophysics of forming stars and the shape of the mass function. The total luminosity density integrates over the shape, so is a rather forgiving test, as it doesn’t distinguish between stars in lots of tiny galaxies or the same number in a few big ones. Consequently, I hadn’t put much stock in it. But it is also a more robustly measured quantity, so perhaps it is more interesting than I gave it credit for, at least once we get to such high redshift that there should be hardly any stars.
Here is a plot of the ultraviolet (UV) luminosity density from Adams et al. (2023):
Fig. 8 from Adams et al. (2023) showing the integrated UV luminosity density as a function of redshift. UV light is produced by short-lived, massive stars, so makes a good proxy for the star formation rate (right axis).
The lower line is one+ a priori prediction of LCDM. I checked this back when JWST was launched, and saw no issues up to z=10, which remains true. However, the data now available at higher redshift are systematically higher than the prediction. The reason for this is simple, and the same as we’ve discussed before: dark matter halos are just beginning to get big; they don’t have enough baryons in them to make that many stars – at least not for the usual assumptions, or even just from extrapolating what we know quasi-empirically. (I say “quasi” because the extrapolation requires a theory-dependent rate of mass growth.)
The dashed line is what I consider to be a reasonable adjustment of the a priori prediction. Putting on an LCDM hat, it is actually closer to what I would have predicted myself because it has a constant star formation efficiency which is one of the knobs I prefer to fix empirically and then not touch. With that, everything is good up to z=10.5, maybe even to z=12 if we only believe* the data with uncertainties. But the bulk of the high redshift data sit well above the plausible expectation of LCDM, so grasping at the dangling ends of the biggest error bars seems unlikely to save us from a fall.
Ignoring the model lines, the data flatten out at z > 10, which is another way of saying that the UV luminosity function isn’t evolving when it should be. This redshift range does not correspond to much cosmic time, only a few hundred million years, so it makes the empiricist in me uncomfortable to invoke astrophysical causes. We have to imagine that the physical conditions change rapidly in the first sliver of cosmic time at just the right fine-tuned rate to make it look like there is no evolution at all, then settle down into a star formation efficiency that remains constant in perpetuity thereafter.
Harikane et al. (2023) also come to the conclusion that there is too much star formation going on at high redshift (their Fig. 18 is like that of Adams above, but extending all the way to z=0). Like many, they appear to be unaware that the early onset of structure formation had been predicted, so discuss three conventional astrophysical solutions as if these were the only possibilities. Translating from their section 6, the astrophysical options are:
Star formation was more efficient early on
Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN)
A top heavy IMF
This is a pretty broad view of the things that are being considered currently, though I’m sure people will add to this list as time goes forward and entropy increases.
Taking these in reverse order, the idea of a top heavy IMF is that preferentially more massive stars form early on. These produce more light per unit mass, so one gets brighter galaxies than predicted with a normal IMF. This is an idea that recurs every so often; see, e.g., section 3.1.1 of McGaugh (2004) where I discuss it in the related context of trying to get LCDM models to reionize the universe early enough. Supermassive Population III stars were all the rage back then. Changing the mass spectrum& with which stars form is one of those uber-free parameters that good modelers refrain from twiddling because it gives too much freedom. It is not a single knob so much as a Pandora’s box full of knobs that invoke a thousand Salpeter’s demons to do nearly anything at the price of understanding nothing.
As it happens, the option of a grossly variable IMF is already disfavored by the existence of quenched galaxies at z~3 that formed a normal stellar population at much higher redshift (z~11). These galaxies are composed of stars that have the spectral signatures appropriate for a population that formed with a normal IMF and evolved as stars do. This is exactly what we expect for galaxies that form early and evolve passively. Adjusting the IMF to explain the obvious makes a mockery of Occam’s razor.
AGN is a catchall term for objects like quasars that are powered by supermassive black holes at the centers of galaxies. This is a light source that is non-stellar, so we’ll overestimate the stellar mass if we mistake some light from AGN# as being from stars. In addition, we know that AGN were more prolific in the early universe. That in itself is also a problem: just as forming galaxies early is hard, so too is it hard to form enough supermassive black holes that early. So this just becomes the same problem in a different guise. Besides, the resolution of JWST is good enough to see where the light is coming from, and it ain’t all from unresolved AGN. Harikane et al. estimate that the AGN contribution is only ~10%.
That leaves the star formation efficiency, which is certainly another knob to twiddle. On the one hand, this is a reasonable thing to do, since we don’t really know what the star formation efficiency in the early universe was. On the other, we expected the opposite: star formation should, if anything, be less efficient at high redshift when the metallicity was low so there were few ways for gas to cool, which is widely considered to be a prerequisite for initiating star formation. Indeed, inefficient cooling was an argument in favor of a top-heavy IMF (perhaps stars need to be more massive to overcome higher temperatures in the gas from which they form), so these two possibilities contradict one another: we can have one but not both.
To me, the star formation efficiency is the most obvious knob to twiddle, but it has to be rather fine-tuned. There isn’t much cosmic time over which the variation must occur, and yet it has to change rapidly and in such a way as to precisely balance the non-evolving UV luminosity function against a rapidly evolving dark matter halo mass function. Once again, we’re in the position of having to invoke astrophysics that we don’t understand to make up for a manifest deficit the behavior of dark matter. Funny how those messy baryons always cover up for that clean, pure, simple dark matter.
I could go on about these possibilities at great length (and did in the 2004 paper cited above). I decline to do so any farther: we keep digging this hole just to fill it again. These ideas only seem reasonable as knobs to turn if one doesn’t see any other way out, which is what happens if one has absolute faith in structure formation theory and is blissfully unaware of the predictions of MOND. So I can already see the community tromping down the familiar path of persuading ourselves that the unreasonable is reasonable, that what was not predicted is what we should have expected all along, that everything is fine with cosmology when it is anything but. We’ve done it so many times before.
Initially I had the cat stuffed back in the bag image here, but that was really for a theoretical paper that I didn’t quite make it to in this post. You’ll see it again soon. The observations discussed here are by observers doing their best in the context they know, so it doesn’t seem appropriate to that.
^The assembly of baryonic mass can and in most cases should be rapid. It is the settling of gas into a rotationally supported structure that takes time – this is influenced by gas physics, not just gravity. Regardless of gravity theory, gas needs to settle gently into a rotating disk in order for spiral galaxies to exist.
+There are other predictions that differ in detail, but this is a reasonable representative of the basic expectation.
*This is not necessarily unreasonable, as there is some proclivity to underestimate the uncertainties. That’s a general statement about the field; I have made no attempt to assess how reasonable these particular error bars are.
&Top-heavy refers to there being more than the usual complement of bright but short-lived (tens of millions of years) stars. These stars are individually high mass (bigger than the sun), while long-lived stars are low mass. Though individually low in mass, these faint stars are very numerous. When one integrates over the population, one finds that most of the total stellar mass resides in the faint, low mass stars while much of the light is produced by the high mass stars. So a top heavy IMF explains high redshift galaxies by making them out of the brightest stars that require little mass to build. However, these stars will explode and go away on a short time scale, leaving little behind. If we don’t outright truncate the mass function (so many knobs here!), there could be some longer-lived stars leftover, but they must be few enough for the whole galaxy to fade to invisibility or we haven’t gained anything. So it is surprising, from this perspective, to see massive galaxies that appear to have evolved normally without any of these knobs getting twiddled.
#Excess AGN were one possibility Jay Franck considered in his thesis as the explanation for what we then considered to be hyperluminous galaxies, but the known luminosity function of AGN up to z = 4 couldn’t explain the entire excess. With the clarity of hindsight, we were just seeing the same sorts of bright, early galaxies that JWST has brought into sharper focus.
I want to start by thanking those of you who have contributed to maintaining this site. This is not a money making venture, but it does help offset the cost of operations.
The title is not related to this, but rather to a flood of papers addressing the questions posed in recent posts. I was asking last time “take it where?” because it is hard to know what cosmology under UT will look like. In particular, how does structure formation work? We need a relativistic theory to progress further than we already have.
There are some papers that partially address this question. Very recently, there have been a whole slew of them. That’s good! It is also a bit overwhelming – I cannot keep up! Here I note a few recent papers that touch on structure formation in MOND. This is an incomplete list, and I haven’t had the opportunity to absorb much of it.
First, there is a paper by Milgrom with his relativistic BIMOND theory. It shows some possibility of subtle departures from FLRW along the lines of what I was describing with UT. Intriguingly, it explicitly shows that the assumptions we made to address structure formation with plain MOND should indeed hold. This is important because a frequent excuse employed to avoid acknowledging MOND’s predictions is that they don’t count if there is no relativistic theory. This is more a form of solution aversion rather than a serious scientific complaint, but people sure lean hard into it. So go read Milgrom’s papers.
Another paper I was looking forward to but didn’t know was in the offing is a rather general treatment of structure formation in relativistic extensions of MOND. There does seem to be some promise for assessing what could work in theories like AeST, and how it relates to earlier work. As a general treatment, there are a lot of options to sort through. Doing so will take a lot of effort by a lot of people over a considerable span of time.
There is also work on gravitational waves, and a variation dubbed a khronometric theory. I, well, I know what both of them are talking about to some extent, and yet some of what they say is presently incomprehensible to me. Clearly I have a lot still to learn. That’s a good problem to have.
I have been thinking for a while now that what we need is a period of a theoretical wild west. People need to try ideas, work through their consequences, and see what works and what does not. Ultimately, most ideas will fail, as there can only be one correct depiction of reality (I sure hope). It will take a lot of work and angst and bickering before we get there: this is perhaps only the beginning of what has already been a long journey for those of us who have been paying attention.
New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, ‘Why then are you not taking part in them?’
I had written most of the post below the line before an exchange with a senior colleague who accused me of asking us to abandon General Relativity (GR). Anyone who read the last post knows that this is the opposite of true. So how does this happen?
Much of the field is mired in bad ideas that seemed like good ideas in the 1980s. There has been some progress, but the idea that MOND is an abandonment of GR I recognize as a misconception from that time. It arose because the initial MOND hypothesis suggested modifying the law of inertia without showing a clear path to how this might be consistent with GR. GR was built on the Equivalence Principle (EP), the equivalence1 of gravitational charge with inertial mass. The original MOND hypothesis directly contradicted that, so it was a fair concern in 1983. It was not by 19842. I was still an undergraduate then, so I don’t know the sociology, but I get the impression that most of the community wrote MOND off at this point and never gave it further thought.
I guess this is why I still encounter people with this attitude, that someone is trying to rob them of GR. It’s feels like we’re always starting at square one, like there has been zero progress in forty years. I hope it isn’t that bad, but I admit my patience is wearing thin.
I’m trying to help you. Don’t waste you’re entire career chasing phantoms.
What MOND does ask us to abandon is the Strong Equivalence Principle. Not the Weak EP, nor even the Einstein EP. Just the Strong EP. That’s a much more limited ask that abandoning all of GR. Indeed, all flavors of EP are subject to experimental test. The Weak EP has been repeatedly validated, but there is nothing about MOND that implies platinum would fall differently from titanium. Experimental tests of the Strong EP are less favorable.
I understand that MOND seems impossible. It also keeps having its predictions come true. This combination is what makes it important. The history of science is chock full of ideas that were initially rejected as impossible or absurd, going all the way back to heliocentrism. The greater the cognitive dissonance, the more important the result.
Continuing the previous discussion of UT, where do we go from here? If we accept that maybe we have all these problems in cosmology because we’re piling on auxiliary hypotheses to continue to be able to approximate UT with FLRW, what now?
I don’t know.
It’s hard to accept that we don’t understand something we thought we understood. Scientists hate revisiting issues that seem settled. Feels like a waste of time. It also feels like a waste of time continuing to add epicycles to a zombie theory, be it LCDM or MOND or the phoenix universe or tired light or whatever fantasy reality you favor. So, painful as it may be, one has find a little humility to step back and take account of what we know empirically independent of the interpretive veneer of theory.
Still, to give one pertinent example, BBN only works if the expansion rate is as expected during the epoch of radiation domination. So whatever is going on has to converge to that early on. This is hardly surprising for UT since it was stipulated to contain GR in the relevant limit, but we don’t actually know how it does so until we work out what UT is – a tall order that we can’t expect to accomplish overnight, or even over the course of many decades without a critical mass of scientists thinking about it (and not being vilified by other scientists for doing so).
Another example is that the cosmological principle – that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic – is observed to be true in the CMB. The temperature is the same all over the sky to one part in 100,000. That’s isotropy. The temperature is tightly coupled to the density, so if the temperature is the same everywhere, so is the density. That’s homogeneity. So both of the assumptions made by the cosmological principle are corroborated by observations of the CMB.
The cosmological principle is extremely useful for solving the equations of GR as applied to the whole universe. If the universe has a uniform density on average, then the solution is straightforward (though it is rather tedious to work through to the Friedmann equation). If the universe is not homogeneous and isotropic, then it becomes a nightmare to solve the equations. One needs to know where everything was for all of time.
Starting from the uniform condition of the CMB, it is straightforward to show that the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy should persist on large scales up to the present day. “Small” things like galaxies go nonlinear and collapse, but huge volumes containing billions of galaxies should remain in the linear regime and these small-scale variations average out. One cubic Gigaparsec will have the same average density as the next as the next, so the cosmological principle continues to hold today.
Anyone spot the rub? I said homogeneity and isotropy should persist. This statement assumes GR. Perhaps it doesn’t hold in UT?
This aspect of cosmology is so deeply embedded in everything that we do in the field that it was only recently that I realized it might not hold absolutely – and I’ve been actively contemplating such a possibility for a long time. Shouldn’t have taken me so long. Felten (1984) realized right away that a MONDian universe would depart from isotropy by late times. I read that paper long ago but didn’t grasp the significance of that statement. I did absorb that in the absence of a cosmological constant (which no one believed in at the time), the universe would inevitably recollapse, regardless of what the density was. This seems like an elegant solution to the flatness/coincidence problem that obsessed cosmologists at the time. There is no special value of the mass density that provides an over/under line demarcating eternal expansion from eventual recollapse, so there is no coincidence problem. All naive MOND cosmologies share the same ultimate fate, so it doesn’t matter what we observe for the mass density.
MOND departs from isotropy for the same reason it forms structure fast: it is inherently non-linear. As well as predicting that big galaxies would form by z=10, Sanders (1998) correctly anticipated the size of the largest structures collapsing today (things like the local supercluster Laniakea) and the scale of homogeneity (a few hundred Mpc if there is a cosmological constant). Pretty much everyone who looked into it came to similar conclusions.
But MOND and cosmology, as we know it in the absence of UT, are incompatible. Where LCDM encompasses both cosmology and the dynamics of bound systems (dark matter halos3), MOND addresses the dynamics of low acceleration systems (the most common examples being individual galaxies) but says nothing about cosmology. So how do we proceed?
For starters, we have to admit our ignorance. From there, one has to assume some expanding background – that much is well established – and ask what happens to particles responding to a MONDian force-law in this background, starting from the very nearly uniform initial condition indicated by the CMB. From that simple starting point, it turns out one can get a long way without knowing the details of the cosmic expansion history or the metric that so obsess cosmologists. These are interesting things, to be sure, but they are aspects of UT we don’t know and can manage without to some finite extent.
For one, the thermal history of the universe is pretty much the same with or without dark matter, with or without a cosmological constant. Without dark matter, structure can’t get going until after thermal decoupling (when the matter is free to diverge thermally from the temperature of the background radiation). After that happens, around z = 200, the baryons suddenly find themselves in the low acceleration regime, newly free to respond to the nonlinear force of MOND, and structure starts forming fast, with the consequences previously elaborated.
But what about the expansion history? The geometry? The big questions of cosmology?
Again, I don’t know. MOND is a dynamical theory that extends Newton. It doesn’t address these questions. Hence the need for UT.
I’ve encountered people who refuse to acknowledge4 that MOND gets predictions like z=10 galaxies right without a proper theory for cosmology. That attitude puts the cart before the horse. One doesn’t look for UT unless well motivated. That one is able to correctly predict 25 years in advance something that comes as a huge surprise to cosmologists today is the motivation. Indeed, the degree of surprise and the longevity of the prediction amplify the motivation: if this doesn’t get your attention, what possibly could?
There is no guarantee that our first attempt at UT (or our second or third or fourth) will work out. It is possible that in the search for UT, one comes up with a theory that fails to do what was successfully predicted by the more primitive theory. That just lets you know you’ve taken a wrong turn. It does not mean that a correct UT doesn’t exist, or that the initial prediction was some impossible fluke.
One candidate theory for UT is bimetric MOND. This appears to justify the assumptions made by Sanders’s early work, and provide a basis for a relativistic theory that leads to rapid structure formation. Whether it can also fit the acoustic power spectrum of the CMB as well as LCDM and AeST has yet to be seen. These things take time and effort. What they really need is a critical mass of people working on the problem – a community that enjoys the support of other scientists and funding institutions like NSF. Until we have that5, progress will remain grudgingly slow.
1The equivalence of gravitational charge and inertial mass means that the m in F=GMm/d2 is identically the same as the m in F=ma. Modified gravity changes the former; modified inertia the latter.
2Bekenstein & Milgrom (1984) showed how a modification of Newtonian gravity could avoid the non-conservation issues suffered by the original hypothesis of modified inertia. They also outlined a path towards a generally covariant theory that Bekenstein pursued for the rest of his life. That he never managed to obtain a completely satisfactory version is often cited as evidence that it can’t be done, since he was widely acknowledged as one of the smartest people in the field. One wonders why he persisted if, as these detractors would have us believe, the smart thing to do was not even try.
4I have entirely lost patience with this attitude. If a phenomena is correctly predicted in advance in the literature, we are obliged as scientists to take it seriously+. Pretending that it is not meaningful in the absence of UT is just an avoidance strategy: an excuse to ignore inconvenient facts.
+I’ve heard eminent scientists describe MOND’s predictive ability as “magic.” This also seems like an avoidance strategy. I, for one, do not believe in magic. That it works as well as it does – that it works at all – must be telling us something about the natural world, not the supernatural.
5There does exist a large and active community of astroparticle physicists trying to come up with theories for what the dark matter could be. That’s good: that’s what needs to happen, and we should exhaust all possibilities. We should do the same for new dynamical theories.
Imagine if you are able that General Relativity (GR) is correct yet incomplete. Just as GR contains Newtonian gravity in the appropriate limit, imagine that GR itself is a limit of some still more general theory that we don’t yet know about. Let’s call it Underlying Theory (UT) for short. This is essentially the working hypothesis of quantum gravity, but here I want to consider a more general case in which the effects of UT are not limited to the tiny netherworld of the Planck scale. Perhaps UT has observable consequences on very large scales, or a scale that is not length-based at all. What would that look like, given that we only know GR?
For starters, it might mean that the conventional Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmology derived from GR is only a first approximation to the cosmology of the unknown deeper theory UT. In the first observational tests, FRW will look great, as the two are practically indistinguishable. As the data improve though, awkward problems might begin to crop up. What and where we don’t know, so our first inclination will not be to infer the existence of UT, but rather to patch up FRW with auxiliary hypotheses. Since the working presumption here is that GR is a correct limit, FRW will continue be a good approximation, and early departures will seem modest: they would not be interpreted as signs of UT.
What do we expect for cosmology anyway? A theory is only as good as its stated predictions. After Hubble established in the 1920s that galaxies external to the Milky Way existed and that the universe was expanding, it became clear that this was entirely natural in GR. Indeed, what was not natural was a static universe, the desire for which had led Einstein to introduce the cosmological constant (his “greatest blunder”).
A wide variety of geometries and expansion histories are possible with FRW. But there is one obvious case that stands out, that of Einstein-de Sitter (EdS, 1932). EdS has a matter density Ωm exactly equal to unity, balancing on the divide between a universe that expands forever (Ωm < 1) and one that eventually recollapses (Ωm > 1). The particular case Ωm = 1 is the only natural scale in the theory. It is also the only FRW model with a flat geometry, in the sense that initially parallel beams of light remain parallel indefinitely. These properties make it special in a way that obsessed cosmologists for many decades. (In retrospect, this obsession has the same flavor as the obsession the Ancients had with heavenly motions being perfect circles*.) A natural cosmology would therefor be one in which Ωm = 1 in normal matter (baryons).
By the 1970s, it was clear that there was no way you could have Ωm = 1 in baryons. There just wasn’t enough normal matter, either observed directly, or allowed by Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. Despite the appeal of Ωm = 1, it looked like we lived in an open universe with Ωm < 1.
This did not sit well with many theorists, who obsessed with the flatness problem. The mass density parameter evolves if it is not identically equal to one, so it was really strange that we should live anywhere close to Ωm = 1, even Ωm = 0.1, if the universe was going to spend eternity asymptoting to Ωm → 0. It was a compelling argument, enough to make most of us accept (in the early 1980s) the Inflationary model of the early universe, as Inflation gives a natural mechanism to drive Ωm → 1. The bulk of this mass could not be normal matter, but by then flat rotation curves had been discovered, along with a ton of other evidence that a lot of matter was dark. A third element that came in around the same time was another compelling idea, supersymmetry, which gave a natural mechanism by which the unseen mass could be non-baryonic. The confluence of these revelations gave us the standard cold dark matter (SCDM) cosmological model. It was EdS with Ωm = 1 mostly in dark matter. We didn’t know what the dark matter was, but we had a good idea (WIMPs), and it just seemed like a matter of tracking them down.
SCDM was absolutely Known for about a decade, pushing two depending on how you count. We were very reluctant to give it up. But over the course of the 1990s, it became clear [again] that Ωm < 1. What was different was a willingness, even a desperation, to accept and rehabilitate Einstein’s cosmological constant. This seemed to solve all cosmological problems, providing a viable concordance cosmology that satisfied all then-available data, salvaged Inflation and a flat geometry (Ωm + ΩΛ = 1, albeit at the expense of the coincidence problem, which is worse in LCDM than it is in open models), and made predictions that came true for the accelerated expansion rate and the location of the first peak of the acoustic power spectrum. This was a major revelation that led to Nobel prizes and still resonates today in the form of papers trying to suss out the nature of this so-called dark energy.
What if the issue is even more fundamental? Taking a long view, subsuming many essentialdetails, we’ve gone from a natural cosmology (EdS) to a less natural one (an open universe with a low density in baryons) to SCDM (EdS with lots of non-baryonic dark matter) to LCDM. Maybe these are just successive approximations we’ve been obliged to make in order for FLRW** to mimic UT? How would we know?
One clue might be if the concordance region closed. Here is a comparison of a compilation of constraints assembled by students in my graduate cosmology course in 2002 (plus 2003 WMAP) with 2018 Planck parameters:
The shaded regions were excluded by the sum of the data available in 2003. The question I wondered then was whether the small remaining white space was indeed the correct answer, or merely the least improbable region left before the whole picture was ruled out. Had we painted ourselves into a corner?
If we take these results and the more recent Planck fits at face value, yes: nothing is left, the window has closed. However, other things change over time as well. For example, I’d grant a higher upper limit to Ωm than is illustrated above. The rotation curve line represents an upper limit that no longer pertains if dark matter halos are greatly modified by feedback. We were trying to avoid invoking that deus ex machina then, but there’s no helping it now.
Still, you can see in this diagram what we now call the Hubble tension. To solve that within the conventional FLRW framework, we have to come up with some new free parameter. There are lots of ideas that invoke new physics.
Maybe the new physics is UT? Maybe we have to keep tweaking FLRW because cosmology has reached a precision such that FLRW is no longer completely adequate as an approximation to UT? But if we are willing to add new parameters via “new physics” made up to address each new problem (dark matter, dark energy, something new and extra for the Hubble tension) so we can keep tweaking it indefinitely, how would we ever recognize that all we’re doing is approximating UT? If only there were different data that suggested new physics in an independent way.
Attitude matters. If we think both LCDM and the existence of dark matter is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as clearlymany physicists do, then any problem that arises is just a bit of trivia to sort out. Despite the current attention being given to the Hubble tension, I’d wager that most of the people not writing papers about it are presuming that the problem will go away: traditional measures of the Hubble constant will converge towards the Planck value. That might happen (or appear to happen through the magic of confirmation bias), and I would expect that myself if I hadn’t worked on H0 directly. It’s a lot easier to dismiss such things when you haven’t been involved enough to know how hard they are to dismiss***.
That last sentence pretty much sums up the community’s attitude towards MOND. That led me to pose the question of the year earlier. I have not heard any answers, just excuses to not have to answer. Still, these issues are presumably not unrelated. That MOND has so many predictions – even in cosmology – come true is itself an indication of UT. From that perspective, it is not surprising that we have to keep tweaking FLRW. Indeed, from this perspective, parameters like ΩCDM are chimeras lacking in physical meaning. They’re just whatever they need to be to fit whatever subset of the data is under consideration. That independent observations pretty much point to the same value is far compelling evidence in favor of LCDM than the accuracy of a fit to any single piece of information (like the CMB) where ΩCDM can be tuned to fit pretty much any plausible power spectrum. But is the stuff real? I make no apologies for holding science to a higher standard than those who consider a fit to the CMB data to be a detection.
It has taken a long time for cosmology to get this far. One should take a comparably long view of these developments, but we generally do not. Dark matter was already received wisdom when I was new to the field, unquestionably so. Dark energy was new in the ’90s but has long since been established as received wisdom. So if we now have to tweak it a little to fix this seemingly tiny tension in the Hubble constant, that seems incremental, not threatening to the pre-existing received wisdom. From the longer view, it looks like just another derailment in an excruciatingly slow-moving train wreck.
So I ask again: what would falsify FLRW cosmology? How do we know when to think outside this box, and not just garnish its edges?
*The obsession with circular motion continued through Copernicus, who placed the sun at the center of motion rather than the earth, but continued to employ epicycles. It wasn’t until over a half century later that Kepler finally broke with this particular obsession. In retrospect, we recognize circular motion as a very special case of the many possibilities available with elliptical orbits, just as EdS is only one possible cosmology with a flat geometry once we admit the possibility of a cosmological constant.
**FLRW = Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker. I intentionally excluded Lemaître from the early historical discussion because he (and the cosmological constant) were mostly excluded from considerations at that time. Mostly.
Someone with a longer memory than my own is Jim Peebles. I happened to bump into him while walking across campus while in Princeton for a meeting in early 2019. (He was finally awarded a Nobel prize later that year; it should have been in association with the original discovery of the CMB). On that occasion, he (unprompted) noted an analogy between the negative attitude towards the cosmological constant that was prevalent in the community pre-1990s to that for MOND now. NOT that he was in any way endorsing MOND; he was just noting that the sociology had the same texture, and could conceivably change on a similar timescale.
***Note that I am not dismissing the Planck results or any other data; I am suggesting the opposite: the data have become so good that it is impossible to continue to approximate UT with tweaks to FLRW (hence “new physics”). I’m additionally pointing out that important new physics has been staring us in the face for a long time.
Cosmology is challenged at present by two apparently unrelated problems: the apparent formation of large galaxies at unexpectedly high redshift observed by JWST, and the tension between the value of the Hubble constant obtained by traditional methods and that found in multi-parameter fits to the acoustic power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
Early results in precision cosmology from WMAP obtained estimates of the Hubble constant h = 0.73 ± 0.03 [I adopt the convention h = H0/(100 km s-1 Mpc-1) so as not to have to have to write the units every time.] This was in good agreement with contemporaneous local estimates from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project to Measure the Hubble Constant: h = 0.72 ± 0.08. This is what Hubble was built to do. It did it, and the vast majority of us were satisfied* at the time that it had succeeded in doing so.
Since that time, a tension has emerged as accuracy has improved. Precise local measures** give h = 0.73 ± 0.01 while fits to the Planck CMB data give h = 0.6736 ± 0.0054. This is around the 5 sigma threshold for believing there is a real difference. Our own results exclude h < 0.705 at 95% confidence. A value as low as 67 is right out.
Given the history of the distance scale, it is tempting to suppose that local measures are at fault. This seems to be the prevailing presumption, and it is just a matter of figuring out what went wrong this time. Of course, things can go wrong with the CMB too, so this way of thinking raises the ever-present danger of confirmation bias, ever a scourge in cosmology. Looking at the history of H0 determinations, it is not local estimates of H0 but rather those from CMB fits that have diverged from the concordance region.
The cosmic mass density parameter and Hubble constant. These covary in CMB fits along the line Ωmh3 = 0.09633 ± 0.00029 (red). Also shown are best-fit values from CMB experiments over time, as labeled (WMAP3 is the earliest shown; Planck2018 the most recent). These all fall along the line of constant Ωmh3, but have diverged over time from concordance with local data. There are many examples of local constraints; for illustration I show examples from Cole et al. (2005), Mohayaee & Tully (2005), Tully et al. (2016), and Riess et al. (2001). The divergence has occurred as finer angular scales have been observed in the CMB power spectrum and correspondingly higher multiples ℓ have been incorporated into fits.
The divergence between local and CMB-determined H0 has occurred as finer angular scales have been observed in the CMB power spectrum and correspondingly higher multiples ℓ have been incorporated into fits. That suggests that the issue resides in the high-ℓ part of the CMB data*** rather than in some systematic in the local determinations. Indeed, if one restricts the analysis of the Planck (“TT”) data to ℓ < 801, one obtains h = 0.70 ± 0.02 (see their Fig. 22), consistent with earlier CMB estimates as well as with local ones.
Photons must traverse the entire universe to reach us from the surface of last scattering. Along the way, they are subject to 21 cm absorption by neutral hydrogen, Thomson scattering by free electrons after reionization, blue and redshifting from traversing gravitational potentials in an expanding universe (the late ISW effect, aka the Rees-Sciama effect), and deflection by gravitational lensing. Lensing is a subtle effect that blurs the surface of last scattering and adds a source of fluctuations not intrinsic to it. The amount of lensing can be calculated from the growth rate of structure; anomalously fast galaxy formation would induce extra power at high ℓ.
Early Galaxy Formation
JWST observations evince the early emergence of massive galaxies at z ≈ 10. This came as a great surprise theoretically, but the empirical result extends previous observations that galaxies grew too bigtoo fast. Taking the data at face value, more structure appears to exist in the early universe than anticipated in the standard calculation. This would cause excess lensing and an anomalous source of power on fine scales. This would be a real, physical anomaly (new physics), not some mistake in the processing of CMB data (which may of course happen, just as with any other sort of data). Here are the Planck data:
Unbinned Planck data with the best-fit power spectrum (red line) and a model (blue line) with h=0.73 and Ωm adjusted to maintain constant Ωmh3. The ratio of the models is shown at bottom, that with = 0.67 divided by the model with h = 0.73. The difference is real; h = 0.67 gives the better fit****. The ratio illustrates the subtle need for slightly greater power with increasing ℓ than provided by the model with h = 0.73. Perhaps this high-ℓ power has a contribution from anomalous gravitational lensing that skews the fit and drives the Hubble tension.
If excess lensing by early massive galaxies occurs but goes unrecognized, fits to the CMB data would be subtly skewed. There would be more power at high ℓ than there should be. Fitting this extra power would drive up Ωm and other relevant parameters*****. In response, it would be necessary to reduce h to maintain a constant Ωmh3. This would explain the temporal evolution of the best fit values, so I posit that this effect may be driving the Hubble tension.
The early formation of massive galaxies would represent a real, physical anomaly. This is unexpected in ΛCDM but not unanticipated. Sanders (1998) explicitly predicted the formation of massive galaxies by z = 10. Excess gravitational lensing by these early galaxies is a natural consequence of his prediction. Other things follow as well: early reionization, an enhanced ISW/Rees-Sciama effect, and high redshift21 cm absorption. In short, everything that is puzzling about the early universe from the ΛCDM perspective was anticipated and often explicitly predicted in advance.
The new physics driving the prediction of Sanders (1998) is MOND. This is the same driver of anomalies in galaxy dynamics, and perhaps now also of the Hubble tension. These predictive successes must be telling us something, and highlight the need for a deeper theory. Whether this finally breaks ΛCDM or we find yet another unsatisfactory out is up to others to decide.
*Indeed, the ± 0.08 rather undersells the accuracy of the result. I quote that because the Key Project team gave it as their bottom line. However, if you read the paper, you see statements like h = 0.71 ± 0.02 (random) ± 0.06 (systematic). The first is the statistical error of the experiment, while the latter is an estimate of how badly it might go wrong (e.g., susceptibility to a recalibration of the Cepheid scale). With the benefit of hindsight, we can say now that the Cepheid calibration has not changed that much: they did indeed get it right to something more like ± 0.02 than ± 0.08.
***I recall being at a conference when the Planck data were fresh where people were visibly puzzled at the divergence of their fit from the local concordance region. It was obvious to everyone that this had come about when the high ℓ data were incorporated. We had no idea why, and people were reluctant to contradict the Authority of the CMB fit, but it didn’t sit right. Since that time, the Planck result has been normalized to the point where I hear its specific determination of cosmic parameters used interchangeably with ΛCDM. And indeed, the best fit is best for good reason; determinations that are in conflict with Planck are either wrong or indicate new physics.
****The sharp eye will also notice a slight offset in the absolute scale. This is fungible with the optical depth due to reionization, which acts as a light fog covering the whole sky: higher optical depth τ depresses the observed amplitude of the CMB. The need to fit the absolute scale as well as the tip in the shape of the power spectrum would explain another temporal evolution in the best-fit CMB parameters, that of declining optical depth from WMAP and early (2013) Planck (τ = 0.09) to 2018 Planck (τ = 0.0544).
*****The amplitude of the power spectrum σ8 would also be affected. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is also a tension between local and CMB determinations of this parameter. All parameters must be fit simultaneously, so how it comes out in the wash depends on the details of the history of the nonlinear growth of structure. Such a calculation is beyond the scope of this note. Indeed, I hope someone else takes up the challenge, as I tire of solving all the problems only to have them ignored. Better if everyone else comes to grip with this for themselves.
Kuhn noted that as paradigms reach their breaking point, there is a divergence of opinions between scientists about what the important evidence is, or what even counts as evidence. This has come to pass in the debate over whether dark matter or modified gravity is a better interpretation of the acceleration discrepancy problem. It sometimes feels like we’re speaking about different topics in a different language. That’s why I split the diagram version of the dark matter tree as I did:
Evidence indicating acceleration discrepancies in the universe and various flavors of hypothesized solutions.
Astroparticle physicists seem to be well-informed about the cosmological evidence (top) and favor solutions in the particle sector (left). As more of these people entered the field in the ’00s and began attending conferences where we overlapped, I recognized gaping holes in their knowledge about the dynamical evidence (bottom) and related hypotheses (right). This was part of my motivation to develop an evidence-based course1 on dark matter, to try to fill in the gaps in essential knowledge that were obviously being missed in the typical graduate physics curriculum. Though popular on my campus, not everyone in the field has the opportunity to take this course. It seems that the chasm has continued to grow, though not for lack of attempts at communication.
Part of the problem is a phase difference: many of the questions that concern astroparticle physicists (structure formation is a big one) were addressed 20 years ago in MOND. There is also a difference in texture: dark matter rarely predicts things but always explains them, even if it doesn’t. MOND often nails some predictions but leaves other things unexplained – just a complete blank. So they’re asking questions that are either way behind the curve or as-yet unanswerable. Progress rarely follows a smooth progression in linear time.
I have become aware of a common construction among many advocates of dark matter to criticize “MOND people.” First, I don’t know what a “MOND person” is. I am a scientist who works on a number of topics, among them both dark matter and MOND. I imagine the latter makes me a “MOND person,” though I still don’t really know what that means. It seems to be a generic straw man. Users of this term consistently paint such a luridly ridiculous picture of what MOND people do or do not do that I don’t recognize it as a legitimate depiction of myself or of any of the people I’ve met who work on MOND. I am left to wonder, who are these “MOND people”? They sound very bad. Are there any here in the room with us?
I am under no illusions as to what these people likely say when I am out of ear shot. Someone recently pointed me to a comment on Peter Woit’s blog that I would not have come across on my own. I am specifically named. Here is a screen shot:
This concisely pinpoints where the field2 is at, both right and wrong. Let’s break it down.
let me just remind everyone that the primary reason to believe in the phenomenon of cold dark matter is the very high precision with which we measure the CMB power spectrum, especially modes beyond the second acoustic peak
This is correct, but it is not the original reason to believe in CDM. The history of the subject matters, as we already believed in CDM quite firmly before any modes of the acoustic power spectrum of the CMB were measured. The original reasons to believe in cold dark matter were (1) that the measured, gravitating mass density exceeds the mass density of baryons as indicated by BBN, so there is stuff out there with mass that is not normal matter, and (2) large scale structure has grown by a factor of 105 from the very smooth initial condition indicated initially by the nondetection of fluctuations in the CMB, while normal matter (with normal gravity) can only get us a factor of 103 (there were upper limits excluding this before there was a detection). Structure formation additionally imposes the requirement that whatever the dark matter is moves slowly (hence “cold”) and does not interact via electromagnetism in order to evade making too big an impact on the fluctuations in the CMB (hence the need, again, for something non-baryonic).
When cold dark matter became accepted as the dominant paradigm, fluctuations in the CMB had not yet been measured. The absence of observable fluctuations at a larger level sufficed to indicate the need for CDM. This, together with Ωm > Ωb from BBN (which seemed the better of the two arguments at the time), sufficed to convince me, along with most everyone else who was interested in the problem, that the answer had3 to be CDM.
This all happened before the first fluctuations were observed by COBE in 1992. By that time, we already believed firmly in CDM. The COBE observations caused initial confusion and great consternation – it was too much! We actually had a prediction from then-standard SCDM, and it had predicted an even lower level of fluctuations than what COBE observed. This did not cause us (including me) to doubt CDM (thought there was one suggestion that it might be due to self-interacting dark matter); it seemed a mere puzzle to accommodate, not an anomaly. And accommodate it we did: the power in the large scale fluctuations observed by COBE is part of how we got LCDM, albeit only a modest part. A lot of younger scientists seem to have been taught that the power spectrum is some incredibly successful prediction of CDM when in fact it has surprised us at nearly every turn.
As I’ve related here before, it wasn’t until the end of the century that CMB observations became precise enough to provide a test that might distinguish between CDM and MOND. That test initially came out in favor of MOND – or at least in favor of the absence of dark matter: No-CDM, which I had suggested as a proxy for MOND. Cosmologists and dark matter advocates consistently omit this part of the history of the subject.
I had hoped that cosmologists would experience the same surprise and doubt and reevaluation that I had experienced when MOND cropped up in my own data when it cropped up in theirs. Instead, they went into denial, ignoring the successful prediction of the first-to-second peak amplitude ratio, or, worse, making up stories that it hadn’t happened. Indeed, the amplitude of the second peak was so surprising that the first paper to measure it omitted mention of it entirely. Just didn’t talk about it, let alone admit that “Gee, this crazy prediction came true!” as I had with MOND in LSB galaxies. Consequently, I decided that it was better to spend my time working on topics where progress could be made. This is why most of my work on the CMB predates “modes beyond the second peak” just as our strong belief in CDM also predated that evidence. Indeed, communal belief in CDM was undimmed when the modes defining the second peak were observed, despite the No-CDM proxy for MOND being the only hypothesis to correctly predict it quantitatively a priori.
That said, I agree with clayton’s assessment that
CDM thinks [the second and third peak] should be about the same
That this is the best evidence now is both correct and a much weaker argument than it is made out to be. It sounds really strong, because a formal fit to the CMB data require a dark matter component at extremely high confidence – something approaching 100 sigma. This analysis assumes that dark matter exist. It does not contemplate that something else might cause the same effect, so all it really does, yet again, is demonstrate that General Relativity cannot explain cosmology when restricted to the material entities we concretely know to exist.
Given the timing, the third peak was not a strong element of my original prediction, as we did not yet have either a first or second peak. We hadn’t yet clearly observed peaks at all, so what I was doing was pretty far-sighted, but I wasn’t thinking that far ahead. However, the natural prediction for the No-CDM picture I was considering was indeed that the third peak should be lower than the second, as I’ve discussed before.
The No-CDM model (blue line) that correctly predicted the amplitude of the second peak fails to predict that of the third. Data from the Planck satellite; model line from McGaugh (2004); figure from McGaugh (2015).
In contrast, in CDM, the acoustic power spectrum of the CMB can do a wide variety of things:
Acoustic power spectra calculated for the CMB for a variety of cosmic parameters. From Dodelson & Hu (2002).
Given the diversity of possibilities illustrated here, there was never any doubt that a model could be fit to the data, provided that oscillations were observed as expected in any of the theories under consideration here. Consequently, I do not find fits to the data, though excellent, to be anywhere near as impressive as commonly portrayed. What does impress me is consistency with independent data.
What impresses me even more are a priori predictions. These are the gold standard of the scientific method. That’s why I worked my younger self’s tail off to make a prediction for the second peak before the data came out. In order to make a clean test, you need to know what both theories predict, so I did this for both LCDM and No-CDM. Here are the peak ratios predicted before there were data to constrain them, together with the data that came after:
The ratio of the first-to-second (left) and second-to-third peak (right) amplitude ratio in LCDM (red) and No-CDM (blue) as predicted by Ostriker & Steinhardt (1995) and McGaugh (1999). Subsequent data as labeled.
The left hand panel shows the predicted amplitude ratio of the first-to-second peak, A1:2. This is the primary quantity that I predicted for both paradigms. There is a clear distinction between the predicted bands. I was not unique in my prediction for LCDM; the same thing can be seen in other contemporaneous models. All contemporaneous models. I was the only one who was not surprised by the data when they came in, as I was the only one who had considered the model that got the prediction right: No-CDM.
The same No-CDM model fails to correctly predict the second-to-third peak ratio, A2:3. It is, in fact, way off, while LCDM is consistent with A2:3, just as Clayton says. This is a strong argument against No-CDM, because No-CDM makes a clear and unequivocal prediction that it gets wrong. Clayton calls this
a stone-cold, qualitative, crystal clear prediction of CDM
which is true. It is also qualitative, so I call it weak sauce. LCDM could be made to fit a very large range of A2:3, but it had already got A1:2 wrong. We had to adjust the baryon densityoutside the allowed range in order to make it consistent with the CMB data. The generous upper limit that LCDM might conceivably have predicted in advance of the CMB data was A1:2 < 2.06, which is still clearly less than observed. For the first years of the century, the attitude was that BBN had been close, but not quite right – preference being given to the value needed to fit the CMB. Nowadays, BBN and the CMB are said to be in great concordance, but this is only true if one restricts oneself to deuterium measurements obtained after the “right” answer was known from the CMB. Prior to that, practically all of the measurements for all of the important isotopes of the light elements, deuterium, helium, and lithium, all concurred that the baryon density Ωbh2 < 0.02, with the consensus value being Ωbh2 = 0.0125 ± 0.0005. This is barely half the value subsequently required to fit the CMB (Ωbh2 = 0.0224 ± 0.0001). But what’s a factor of two among cosmologists? (In this case, 4 sigma.)
Taking the data at face value, the original prediction of LCDM was falsified by the second peak. But, no problem, we can move the goal posts, in this case by increasing the baryon density. The successful prediction of the third peak only comes after the goal posts have been moved to accommodate the second peak. Citing only the comparable size of third peak to the second while not acknowledging that the second was too small elides the critical fact that No-CDM got something right, a priori, that LCDM did not. No-CDM failed only after LCDM had already failed. The difference is that I acknowledge its failure while cosmologists elide this inconvenient detail. Perhaps the second peak amplitude is a fluke, but it was a unique prediction that was exactly nailed and remains true in all subsequent data. That’s a pretty remarkable fluke4.
LCDM wins ugly here by virtue of its flexibility. It has greater freedom to fit the data – any of the models in the figure of Dodelson & Hu will do. In contrast. No-CDM is the single blue line in my figure above, and nothing else. Plausible variations in the baryon density make hardly any difference: A1:2 has to have the value that was subsequently observed, and no other. It passed that test with flying colors. It flunked the subsequent test posed by A2:3. For LCDM this isn’t even a test, it is an exercise in fitting the data with a model that has enough parameters5 to do so.
In those days, when No-CDM was the only correct a priori prediction, I would point out to cosmologists that it had got A1:2 right when I got the chance (which was rarely: I was invited to plenty of conferences in those days, but none on the CMB). The typical reaction was usually outright denial6 though sometimes it warranted a dismissive “That’s not a MOND prediction.” The latter is a fair criticism. No-CDM is just General Relativity without CDM. It represented MOND as a proxy under the ansatz that MOND effects had not yet manifested in a way that affected the CMB. I expected that this ansatz would fail at some point, and discussed some of the ways that this should happen. One that’s relevant today is that galaxies form early in MOND, so reionization happens early, and the amplitude of gravitational lensing effects is amplified. There is evidence for both of these now. What I did not anticipate was a departure from a damping spectrum around L=600 (between the second and third peaks). That’s a clear deviation from the prediction, which falsifies the ansatz but not MOND itself. After all, they were correct in noting that this wasn’t a MOND prediction per se, just a proxy. MOND, like Newtonian dynamics before it, is relativity adjacent, but not itself a relativistic theory. Neither can explain the CMB on their own. If you find that an unsatisfactory answer, imagine how I feel.
The same people who complained then that No-CDM wasn’t a real MOND prediction now want to hold MOND to the No-CDM predicted power spectrum and nothing else. First it was the second peak isn’t a real MOND prediction! then when the third peak was observed it became no way MOND can do this! This isn’t just hypocritical, it is bad science. The obvious way to proceed would be to build on the theory that had the greater, if incomplete, predictive success. Instead, the reaction has consistently been to cherry-pick the subset of facts that precludes the need for serious rethinking.
This brings us to sociology, so let’s examine some more of what Clayton has to say:
Any talk I’ve ever seen by McGaugh (or more exotic modified gravity people like Verlinde) elides this fact, and they evade the questions when I put my hand up to ask. I have invited McGaugh to a conference before specifically to discuss this point, and he just doesn’t want to.
There is so much to unpack here, I hardly know where to start. By saying I “elide this fact” about the qualitatively equality of the second and third peak, Clayton is basically accusing me of lying by omission. This is pretty rich coming from a community that consistently elides the history I relate above, and never addresses the question raised by MOND’s predictive power.
Intellectual honesty is very important to me – being honest that MOND predicted what I saw in low surface brightness where my own prediction was wrong is what got me into this mess in the first place. It would have been vastly more convenient to pretend that I never heard of MOND (at first I hadn’t7) and act like that never happened. That would be an lie of omission. It would be a large lie, a lie that denies an important aspect of how the world works (what we’re supposed to uncover through science), the sort of lie that cleric Paul Gerhardt may have had in mind when he said
When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
Clayton is, in essence, accusing me of exactly that by failing to mention the CMB in talks he has seen. That might be true – I give a lot of talks. He hasn’t been to most of them, and I usually talk about things I’ve done more recently than 2004. I’ve commented explicitly on this complaint before –
There’s only so much you can address in a half hour talk. [This is a recurring problem. No matter what I say, there always seems to be someone who asks “why didn’t you address X?” where X is usually that person’s pet topic. Usually I could do so, but not in the time allotted.]
– so you may appreciate my exasperation at being accused of dishonesty by someone whose complaint is so predictable that I’ve complained before about people who make this complaint. I’m only human – I can’t cover all subjects for all audiences every time all the time. Moreover, I do tend to choose to discuss subjects that may be news to an audience, not simply reprise the greatest hits they want to hear. Clayton obviously knows about the third peak; he doesn’t need to hear about it from me. This is the scientific equivalent of shouting Freebird!at a concert.
It isn’t like I haven’t talked about it. I have been rigorously honest about the CMB, and certainly have not omitted mention of the third peak. Here is a comment from February 2003 when the third peak was only tentatively detected:
Page et al. (2003) do not offer a WMAP measurement of the third peak. They do quote a compilation of other experiments by Wang et al. (2003). Taking this number at face value, the second to third peak amplitude ratio is A2:3 = 1.03 +/- 0.20. The LCDM expectation value for this quantity was 1.1, while the No-CDM expectation was 1.9. By this measure, LCDM is clearly preferable, in contradiction to the better measured first-to-second peak ratio.
the Boomerang data and the last credible point in the 3-year WMAP data both have power that is clearly in excess of the no-CDM prediction. The most natural interpretation of this observation is forcing by a mass component that does not interact with photons, such as non-baryonic cold dark matter.
There are lots like this, including my review for CJP and this talk given at KITP where I had been asked to explicitly take the side of MOND in a debate format for an audience of largely particle physicists. The CMB, including the third peak, appears on the fourth slide, which is right up front, not being elided at all. In the first slide, I tried to encapsulate the attitudes of both sides:
I did the same at a meeting in Stony Brook where I got a weird vibe from the audience; they seemed to think I was lying about the history of the second peak that I recount above. It will be hard to agree on an interpretation if we can’t agree on documented historical facts.
More recently, this image appears on slide 9 of this lecture from the cosmology course I just taught (Fall 2022):
I recognize this slide from talks I’ve given over the past five plus years; this class is the most recent place I’ve used it, not the first. On some occasions I wrote “The 3rd peak is the best evidence for CDM.” I do not recall which all talks I used this in; many of them were likely colloquia for physics departments where one has more time to cover things than in a typical conference talk. Regardless, these apparently were not the talks that Clayton attended. Rather than it being the case that I never address this subject, the more conservative interpretation of the experience he relates would be that I happened not to address it in the small subset of talks that he happened to attend.
But do go off, dude: tell everyone how I never address this issue and evade questions about it.
I have been extraordinarily patient with this sort of thing, but I confess to a great deal of exasperation at the perpetual whataboutism that many scientists engage in. It is used reflexively to shut down discussion of alternatives: dark matter has to be right for this reason (here the CMB); nothing else matters (galaxy dynamics), so we should forbid discussion of MOND. Even if dark matter proves to be correct, the CMB is being used an excuse to not address the question of the century: why does MOND get so many predictions right? Any scientist with a decent physical intuition who takes the time to rub two brain cells together in contemplation of this question will realize that there is something important going on that simply invoking dark matter does not address.
In fairness to McGaugh, he pointed out some very interesting features of galactic DM distributions that do deserve answers. But it turns out that there are a plurality of possibilities, from complex DM physics (self interactions) to unmodelable SM physics (stellar feedback, galaxy-galaxy interactions). There are no such alternatives to CDM to explain the CMB power spectrum.
Thanks. This is nice, and why I say it would be easier to just pretend to never have heard of MOND. Indeed, this succinctly describes the trajectory I was on before I became aware of MOND. I would prefer to be recognized for my own work – of whichthereisplenty – than an association with a theory that is not my own – an association that is born of honestly reporting a surprising observation. I find my reception to be more favorable if I just talk about the data, but what is the point of taking data if we don’t test the hypotheses?
I have gone to great extremes to consider all the possibilities. There is not a plurality of viable possibilities; most of these things do not work. The specific ideas that are cited here are known not work. SIDM apears to work because it has more free parameters than are required to describe the data. This is a common failing of dark matter models that simply fit some functional form to observed rotation curves. They can be made to fit the data, but they cannot be used to predict the way MOND can.
Feedback is even worse. Never mind the details of specific feedback models, and think about what is being said here: the observations are to be explained by “unmodelable [standard model] physics.” This is a way of saying that dark matter claims to explain the phenomena while declining to make a prediction. Don’t worry – it’ll work out! How can that be considered better than or even equivalent to MOND when many of the problems we invoke feedback to solve are caused by the predictions of MOND coming true? We’re just invoking unmodelable physics as a deus ex machina to make dark matter models look like something they are not. Are physicists straight-up asserting that it is better to have a theory that is unmodelable than one that makes predictions that come true?
Returning to the CMB, are there no “alternatives to CDM to explain the CMB power spectrum”? I certainly do not know how to explain the third peak with the No-CDM ansatz. For that we need a relativistic theory, like Bekenstein‘s TeVeS. This initially seemed promising, as it solved the long-standing problem of gravitational lensing in MOND. However, it quickly became clear that it did not work for the CMB. Nevertheless, I learned from this that there could be more to the CMB oscillations than allowed by the simple No-CDM ansatz. The scalar field (an entity theorists love to introduce) in TeVeS-like theories could play a role analogous to cold dark matter in the oscillation equations. That means that what I thought was a killer argument against MOND – the exact same argument Clayton is making – is not as absolute as I had thought.
Writing down a new relativistic theory is not trivial. It is not what I do. I am an observational astronomer. I only play at theory when I can’t get telescope time.
Comic from the Far Side by Gary Larson.
So in the mid-00’s, I decided to let theorists do theory and started the first steps in what would ultimately become the SPARC database (it took a decade and a lot of effort by Jim Schombert and Federico Lelli in addition to myself). On the theoretical side, it also took a long time to make progress because it is a hard problem. Thanks to work by Skordis & Zlosnik on a theory they [now] call AeST8, it is possible to fit the acoustic power spectrum of the CMB:
I consider this to be a demonstration, not necessarily the last word on the correct theory, but hopefully an iteration towards one. The point here is that it is possible to fit the CMB. That’s all that matters for our current discussion: contrary to the steady insistence of cosmologists over the past 15 years, CDM is not the only way to fit the CMB. There may be other possibilities that we have yet to figure out. Perhaps even a plurality of possibilities. This is hard work and to make progress we need a critical mass of people contributing to the effort, not shouting rubbish from the peanut gallery.
As I’ve done before, I like to take the language used in favor of dark matter, and see if it also fits when I put on a MOND hat:
As a galaxy dynamicist, let me just remind everyone that the primary reason to believe in MOND as a physical theory and not some curious dark matter phenomenology is the very high precision with which MOND predicts, a priori, the dynamics of low-acceleration systems, especially low surface brightness galaxies whose kinematics were practically unknown at the time of its inception. There is a stone-cold, quantitative, crystal clear prediction of MOND that the kinematics of galaxies follows uniquely from their observed baryon distributions. This is something CDM profoundly and irremediably gets wrong: it predicts that the dark matter halo should have a central cusp9 that is not observed, and makes no prediction at all for the baryon distribution, let alone does it account for the detailed correspondence between bumps and wiggles in the baryon distribution and those in rotation curves. This is observed over and over again in hundreds upon hundreds of galaxies, each of which has its own unique mass distribution so that each and every individual case provides a distinct, independent test of the hypothesized force law. In contrast, CDM does not even attempt a comparable prediction: rather than enabling the real-world application to predict that this specific galaxy will have this particular rotation curve, it can only refer to the statistical properties of galaxy-like objects formed in numerical simulations that resemble real galaxies only in the abstract, and can never be used to directly predict the kinematics of a real galaxy in advance of the observation – an ability that has been demonstrated repeatedly by MOND. The simple fact that the simple formula of MOND is so repeatably correct in mapping what we see to what we get is to me the most convincing way to see that we need a grander theory that contains MOND and exactly MOND in the low acceleration limit, irrespective of the physical mechanism by which this is achieved.
That is stronger language than I would ordinarily permit myself. I do so entirely to show the danger of being so darn sure. I actually agree with clayton’s perspective in his quote; I’m just showing what it looks like if we adopt the same attitude with a different perspective. The problems pointed out for each theory are genuine, and the supposed solutions are not obviously viable (in either case). Sometimes I feel like we’re up the proverbial creek without a paddle. I do not know what the right answer is, and you should be skeptical of anyone who is sure that he does. Being sure is the sure road to stagnation.
1It may surprise some advocates of dark matter that I barely touch on MOND in this course, only getting to it at the end of the semester, if at all. It really is evidence-based, with a focus on the dynamical evidence as there is a lot more to this than seems to be appreciated by most physicists*. We also teach a course on cosmology, where students get the material that physicists seem to be more familiar with.
*I once had a colleague who was is a physics department ask how to deal with opposition to developing a course on galaxy dynamics. Apparently, some of the physicists there thought it was not a rigorous subject worthy of an entire semester course – an attitude that is all too common. I suggested that she pointedly drop the textbook of Binney & Tremaine on their desks. She reported back that this technique proved effective.
2I do not know who clayton is; that screen name does not suffice as an identifier. He claims to have been in contact with me at some point, which is certainly possible: I talk to a lot of people about these issues. He is welcome to contact me again, though he may wish to consider opening with an apology.
3One of the hardest realizations I ever had as a scientist was that both of the reasons (1) and (2) that I believed to absolutely require CDM assumed that gravity was normal. If one drops that assumption, as one must to contemplate MOND, then these reasons don’t require CDM so much as they highlight that something is very wrong with the universe. That something could be MOND instead of CDM, both of which are in the category of who ordered that?
4In the early days (late ’90s) when I first started asking why MOND gets any predictions right, one of the people I asked was Joe Silk. He dismissed the rotation curve fits of MOND as a fluke. There were 80 galaxies that had been fit at the time, which seemed like a lot of flukes. I mention this because one of the persistent myths of the subject is that MOND is somehow guaranteed to magically fit rotation curves. Erwin de Blok and I explicitly showed that this was not true in a 1998 paper.
5I sometimes hear cosmologists speak in awe of the thousands of observed CMB modes that are fit by half a dozen LCDM parameters. This is impressive, but we’re fitting a damped and driven oscillation – those thousands of modes are not all physically independent. Moreover, as can be seen in the figure from Dodelson & Hu, some free parameters provide more flexibility than others: there is plenty of flexibility in a model with dark matter to fit the CMB data. Only with the Planck data do minortensions arise, the reaction to which is generally to add more free parameters, like decoupling the primordial helium abundance from that of deuterium, which is anathema to standard BBN so is sometimes portrayed as exciting, potentially new physics.
For some reason, I never hear the same people speak in equal awe of the hundreds of galaxy rotation curves that can be fit by MOND with a universal acceleration scale and a single physical free parameter, the mass-to-light ratio. Such fits are over-constrained, and every single galaxy is an independent test. Indeed, MOND can predict rotation curves parameter-free in cases where gas dominates so that the stellar mass-to-light ratio is irrelevant.
How should we weigh the relative merit of these very different lines of evidence?
6On a number of memorable occasions, people shouted “No you didn’t!” On smaller number of those occasions (exactly two), they bothered to look up the prediction in the literature and then wrote to apologize and agree that I had indeed predicted that.
7If you read this paper, part of what you will see is me being confused about how low surface brightness galaxies could adhere so tightly to the Tully-Fisher relation. They should not. In retrospect, one can see that this was a MOND prediction coming true, but at the time I didn’t know about that; all I could see was that the result made no sense in the conventional dark matter picture.
Some while after we published that paper, Bob Sanders, who was at the same institute as my collaborators, related to me that Milgrom had written to him and asked “Do you know these guys?”
8Initially they had called it RelMOND, or just RMOND. AeST stands for Aether-Scalar-Tensor, and is clearly a step along the lines that Bekenstein made with TeVeS.
In addition to fitting the CMB, AeST retains the virtues of TeVeS in terms of providing a lensing signal consistent with the kinematics. However, it is not obvious that it works in detail – Tobias Mistele has a brand new paper testing it, and it doesn’t look good at extremely low accelerations. With that caveat, it significantly outperforms extant dark matter models.
There is an oft-repeated fallacy that comes up any time a MOND-related theory has a problem: “MOND doesn’t work therefore it has to be dark matter.” This only ever seems to hold when you don’t bother to check what dark matter predicts. In this case, we should but don’t detect the edge of dark matter halos at higher accelerations than where AeST runs into trouble.
9Another question I’ve posed for over a quarter century now is what would falsify CDM? The first person to give a straight answer to this question was Simon White, who said that cusps in dark matter halos were an ironclad prediction; they had to be there. Many years later, it is clear that they are not, but does anyone still believe this is an ironclad prediction? If it is, then CDM is already falsified. If it is not, then what would be? It seems like the paradigm can fit any surprising result, no matter how unlikely a priori. This is not a strength, it is a weakness. We can, and do, add epicycle upon epicycle to save the phenomenon. This has been my concern for CDM for a long time now: not that it gets some predictions wrong, but that it can apparently never get a prediction so wrong that we can’t patch it up, so we can never come to doubt it if it happens to be wrong.
