[sojuz151]

This theory is trying to justify MOND, and MOND by itself has many problems. It has problems with explaining the bullet cluster, CMB spectrum, and rotation curves of some galaxies. This paper was not even peer reviewed. This is almost certainly nothing burger

[naasking]

The theory is not trying to justify MOND. That's a gross mischaracterization.

LCDM has it's own share of problems, including CMB spectrum issues and nearly zero predictive power for rotation curves.

[RickyS]

This theory is absolutely NOT trying to justify MOND

[barfbagginus]

The reason you think that this theory is trying to justify MOND is likely because hossenfelder spends about a third of the article discussing it instead of discussing the current theory.

MOND is hossenfelder's pet theory - they've done work on a version of it called Covariant Emergent Gravity

It's fine to say that any given new physical theory is almost certainly a nothingburger.. I agree with that. But please reread the article and confirm for yourself that what I say is true.

[crznp]

From the arxiv pdf after eq125:

> This presents a testable deviation from classical general relativity, potentially observable when the other terms are small, such as at low acceleration. The absence of such terms is likely to falsify this model. On the other hand since diffusion of the metric can result in stronger gravitational fields when we might otherwise expect none to be present, it raises the possibility that diffusion may explain galaxy rotation curves and galaxy formation without the need for dark matter

It certainly doesn't seem like an extreme reading to call this a MOND theory.

[refulgentis]

This is the second time you wrote a comment claiming it's a third of the essay.

This time around, I feel like I should point out I went back and checked and it's in 6 sentences across 3 paragraphs in a 18 paragraph article.

I don't know why you started a new account to make wildly exaggerated claims about a pretty good article, but here we are