Critical take on "Mass models of disk galaxies from the DiskMass Survey in MOND"

Abstract: Angus et al. (2015) have recently faulted MOND as follows: Studying thirty disc galaxies from the DiskMass survey, they derive the profiles of velocity dispersion perpendicular to the discs as predicted by MOND, $\sigma_M(r)$, and compare them with $\sigma(r)$, measured as part of the DiskMass project. This is a new test of MOND, different from rotation-curve analysis. A nontrivial accomplishment of MOND -- not discussed by Angus et al. -- is that the shapes of $\sigma_M$ and $\sigma$ agree very well, i.e, $\eta(r)\equiv\sigma_M(r)/\sigma(r)$ is well consistent with being $r$-independent (while $\sigma$ and $\sigma_M$ are strongly $r$ dependent). The fault found with MOND was that $\eta$ is systematically above 1 (with an average of about 1.3). I have suggested to Angus et al. that the fault may lie with the DiskMass dispersions, which may well be too low for the purpose at hand: Being based on population-integrated line profiles, they may be overweighed by younger populations, known to have much smaller dispersions, and scale heights, than the older populations, which weigh more heavily on the light distributions. I discuss independent evidence that supports this view, and show, besides, that if the DiskMas dispersions are underestimates by only 25 %, on average, the MOND predictions are in full agreement with the data, in shape and magnitude. Now, Aniyan et al. (2015) have questioned the DiskMass $\sigma$ on the same basis. They show for the solar column in the Milky Way that: " Combining the (single) measured velocity dispersion of the total young + old disc population... with the scale height estimated for the older population would underestimate the disc surface density by a factor of $\sim 2.$" If this mismatch found for the Milky Way is typical, correcting for it would bring the measured DiskMass $\sigma(r)$ to a remarkable agreement with the predicted MOND $\sigma_M(r)$.