How do galaxy orbital timescales in clusters compare to the timescales assumed in modified gravity field equations?

# Galaxy Orbital Timescales vs. Modified Gravity Field Equations

Your question touches on a genuine tension in modified gravity research: whether the dynamical timescales galaxies actually experience match the assumptions baked into alternative gravity theories.

The Timescale Mismatch in Clusters

The core issue appears in how modified gravity models perform at different scales. While theories like AQUAL and GRAS succeed at galactic scales—where orbital motions span ~10⁸ years—they struggle in galaxy clusters, which operate over comparable or longer dynamical times [AG-2026.02-201]. The problem is that a single modified field equation doesn't naturally transition between these regimes; cluster dynamics involve many more objects moving on slower timescales, yet the modified gravity prescriptions developed for single galaxies don't automatically scale up.

A concrete example: the Radial Acceleration Relationship (RAR) describes how rotation curves work in individual galaxies, but clusters exhibit a *different* RAR, suggesting the underlying gravitational law itself may need cluster-specific adjustments [AG-2026.02-201]. This hints that the timescales intrinsic to cluster orbits—how long it takes systems to reach dynamical equilibrium—may not match what the field equations predict if you simply apply galactic rules.

Merger Timescales as a Test

When galaxies collide *within* clusters, they merge on timescales that depend heavily on the host halo's mass and the initial orbits [AG-2025.04-063]. Notably, these timescales are *non-universal*—they don't follow a simple rule. This matters for modified gravity because if your field equation assumes orbits decay at a fixed rate (as, say, friction-based prescriptions might), real cluster mergers will look systematically faster or slower depending on conditions the theory didn't anticipate.

Precession as a Precision Test

One way to probe whether modified gravity assumptions match real timescales is through apsidal precession in tight binaries [AG-2024.10-033]. MOND predicts orbital precession rates that depart from Newtonian predictions, but only in very weak-acceleration regimes. The key point: if the timescale of precession (which occurs over many orbits) is measurable, it becomes a direct test of whether the modified equations' implicit clock runs at the right speed.

---

The provided preprints don't directly compare assumed timescales in field equations to observed cluster dynamics—that would require a paper showing how long modified gravity predicts equilibration *should* take versus what simulations or observations measure.