Demonstrates the relationship between MOND acceleration and cosmological parameters, indicating stringent boundaries for modified inertia models.
The MOND acceleration scale a0 ~ 1.2e-10 m/s^2, below which galaxy dynamics depart from Newtonian gravity, numerically coincides with the cosmological quantity c*sqrt(Lambda). This paper separates, and proves, three distinct claims about that coincidence. (1) A reframing (modest, not original): the scale is written as a horizon surface gravity, a0 = c^2*sqrt(Lambda/32pi) = (c/2)*sqrt(G*rho_Lambda) = c*H_Lambda/Z with Z = sqrt(32pi/3) ~ 5.789 -- algebraic identities checkable in minutes. (2) A mechanism for the functional form (established physics): the deep-MOND square-root law, the Radial Acceleration Relation, and the Baryonic Tully-Fisher Relation follow from treating inertia as a response to the de Sitter-Unruh temperature of the cosmic horizon (Milgrom 1999; Deser and Levin 1997). (3) Rigorous limits (the new content): the O(1) coefficient Z is NOT derived; the temperature route that yields the shape predicts a scale ~12x too large and, as a covariant action, the WRONG SIGN (anti-MOND) -- stated as a passivity theorem; and NO covariant modified-inertia completion exists in three exhaustive cases -- local (an Ostrogradsky ghost), field-theoretic (a Cassini-violating metric coupling), and nonlocal (the passivity -> anti-MOND sign theorem: for any causal, ghost-free, unitary cosmological source the low-acceleration inertia shift delta_m = 2*Integral(rho/omega^2) >= 0, raising inertia, so the MOND sign requires a negative-norm ghost). The defensible conclusion is that a0 ~ c*sqrt(Lambda) is a FORCED SCALE, while the MOND sign and the precise normalization are POSTULATED, not derived. This is a suggestive geometric/thermodynamic reframing of the MOND constant with sharply proven boundaries -- NOT a complete theory of MOND, and NOT a theory of everything. The one observationally distinctive consequence -- a declining scale, a0(z=3) ~ 0.74*a0(0), tracking the dark-energy density -- is falsifiable this decade. This manuscript intentionally claims LESS than, and corrects, an earlier over-stated description of the same material by the author. All symbolic and numerical checks are reproducible from the public repository.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carl P. Zimmerman (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: