[effervesce]

While browsing the net I found some interesting discussion on Erik Verlinde (string theorist) proposing in his paper On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Motion that gravity is not a fundamental force.

also discussed at two blogs.

In summary (using my limited science knowledge), Erik Verlinde proposes that gravity is simply an emergent property, and is simply an entropic force (as well as space and time being emergent phenomena...)
The abstract of the paper reads
"Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic."

He uses the holographic principle (explained well in this 1 hr video on youtube), which describes space as being encoded on a boundary of a region - which if extended means that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional structure and the world is in effect a hologram.

So perhaps there is no Higgs particle? Are we in for some new breakthroughs in physics? Do we really live in a matrix-like universe after all? Or is it simply alot of speculation with no real substance.

Time to bring out the dusty physics textbooks...

[gwnn]

boo hoo. I will believe Einstein over random bloggers any day. And Roy Kerr who invented symmetric relays. I would like to take GR this semester but my professor says it would never help me .

[effervesce]

gwnn, on Jan 11 2010, 07:36 PM, said:

boo hoo. I will believe Einstein over random bloggers any day. And Roy Kerr who invented symmetric relays. I would like to take GR this semester but my professor says it would never help me .

Erik Verlinde is a well respected theoretical physicist along with his twin brother Herman Verlinde. He is currently a professor of physics at University of Amsterdam (previously was professor at Princeton and Utrect).

As for random bloggers... scientificblogging is a blog website specifically for scientists - Johannes Koelman has a PhD in theoretical physics...

[gwnn]

fair enough. I still believe Einstein. but I will read the article then

[blackshoe]

I'm sure there were those, around a century ago, who "believed" Newton rather than Einstein, at least until some of the latter's predictions were shown to be accurate. Dr. Verlinde may well be right - only time will tell.

[Al_U_Card]

That is how real science works.

An experimenter (in practice or in theory) has a question that the "current" explanation doesn't answer (to his satisfaction). He proposes alternatives and sees where they lead. Whether or not they supplant the existing paradigm is not what is important. That we do not blindly believe what is currently accepted and that we welcome challenges to orthodoxy and refuse to punish or dissuade those that would push the boundaries of our knowledge.

The alternative is to remain in place, congratulating ourselves on our success.

[gwnn]

I am not the king of the international absolute academy. I am just a bystander and reserve my right to form unbased opinions. Of course he may well be right but I think he is not. There were thousands of attempts to disprove millions of ideas. Most of the time they failed, especially with regards to gravity. I am not dismissing the idea as impossible but just don't think it is true. Whenever there will be experimental evidence for it I will change my mind. I don't think my scepticism will hinder the progress of science.

[helene_t]

I used to think all forces, not only gravity, were just statistical phenomena. Then I thought it probably didn't matter. Then I realized I had no clue what I was rambling about.

[Fluffy]

gravitation is pure luck, particles just move around randomly, we are just being lucky that they move to meet each other. But it may stop happening at any time

[Trinidad]

Al_U_Card, on Jan 12 2010, 03:42 PM, said:

The alternative is to remain in place, congratulating ourselves on our success.

Remaining in place is being inert. It would lead to chaos. Chaos translates to entropy. Therefore inertia is entropic.

How am I doing on theoretical physics?



Rik

[jjbrr]

effervesce, on Jan 11 2010, 07:22 PM, said:

In summary (using my limited science knowledge), Erik Verlinde proposes that gravity is simply an emergent property, and is simply an entropic force (as well as space and time being emergent phenomena...)

My physics professor spoke with an unusual lisp, and he would frequently say "It's so simple" but came out something like "Ith's thso thsimple."

Is it really simple? It seems pretty complicated to me lol

[gwnn]

BTW their equations are quite nice. I still don't think I'm a hologram but Quantum Leap was awesome so who knows?

[Winstonm]

I think this guy might be onto something because just today at lunch - just for a second - I swear I was floating.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on Jan 12 2010, 06:48 PM, said:

I think this guy might be onto something because just today at lunch - just for a second - I swear I was floating.

Gotta lay off those liquid lunches....lol

[barmar]

It doesn't sound like this theory contradicts Einstein. Einstein said that gravity is a result of the way matter affects space/time, and it seems like this theory provides the details of that interaction. All the forces in quantum mechanics work completely differently, by exchanging force particles (e.g. photons for electromagnetic forces). Gravitons had been proposed as a particle of gravity, but I think it has mostly been discounted.