The Wide Binary analysis debate continues. This paper doesn't see MOND-like behavior in wide binaries.
Of the 44 pairs observed with HARPS, 27% show sign of multiplicity or are not suitable for the test, and 32 bona-fide WBs survive our selection. Their projected separation s is up to 14 kAU, or 0.06 parsec. We determine distances, eccentricities and position angles to reproduce the velocity differences according to Newton's law, finding reasonable solutions for all WBs but one, and with some systems possibly too near pericenter and/or at too high inclination. Our (limited) number of WBs does not show obvious trends with separation or acceleration and is consistent with Newtonian dynamics. We are collecting a larger sample of this kind to robustly assess these results.
From R. Saglia (2025).
6 comments:
We determine distances, eccentricities and position angles to reproduce the velocity differences according to Newton's law, finding reasonable solutions for all WBs but one
did the one exception follow MOND
@neo Read it and judge for yourself.
Would it matter if the one (out of 32) was closer to the MOND value? There are always going to be outliers and the error bounds on these computations are pretty wide.
perhaps the one exception is the only good example to test WBs
One sample may be enough to falsify a theory, if the quality of the sample is very high (i.e. the probability of the result occurring by chance is (three to) five sigma) . But it's never going to be enough to validate a theory, as least in astrophysics, because of those darned large error bounds it could have occurred by chance.
. Our (limited) number of WBs does not show obvious trends with separation or acceleration and is consistent with Newtonian dynamics. We are collecting a larger sample of this kind to robustly assess these results.
Post a Comment