The End Of Gravity As a Fundamental Force 650
An anonymous reader writes "At a symposium at the Dutch Spinoza-instituut on 8 December, 2009, string theorist Erik Verlinde introduced a theory that derives Newton's classical mechanics. In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings. He does not consider gravity as fundamental, but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscopic reality. A relativistic extension of his argument leads directly to Einstein's equations." Here are two blog entries discussing Verlinde's proposal in somewhat more accessible terms.
Update: 01/12 04:48 GMT by KD : Dr. Verlinde has put up a blog post explaining in simpler terms the logic of the gravity from entropy paper. He introduces it with: "Because the logic of the paper is being misrepresented in some reports, I add here some clarifications."
Update: 01/12 04:48 GMT by KD : Dr. Verlinde has put up a blog post explaining in simpler terms the logic of the gravity from entropy paper. He introduces it with: "Because the logic of the paper is being misrepresented in some reports, I add here some clarifications."
Summary of comments (Score:5, Funny)
At least half the comments on this story will boil down to one or more of the following:
There. That should save everyone some time.
Re:Summary of comments (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I think I'll refrain from posting now. Thanks for saving my time.
Textbooks (Score:5, Funny)
Damn it. I knew I should have sold back my college Physics textbooks when I had the chance...
Re:Summary of comments (Score:1, Funny)
YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID!
No, PlayStation fans are educated stupid. Wii come from the GameCube [fateback.com]. Animal Crossing is 24 simultaneous days in one.
Awesome conversation starter! (Score:5, Funny)
"He does not consider gravity as fundamental, but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscropic reality."
If that doesn't make you the life of the party in one fell swoop, NOTHING ever will.
Getting paranoia to a new level (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just because the math works doesn't mean it's t (Score:5, Funny)
That assertion can also never be proved wrong, and it is mathematically sound.
Re:Golden ratio (Score:5, Funny)
I have a gut feeling that golden ratio will fit into all this somewhere.
Provided the golden ratio is exactly 42.
Re:Awesome conversation starter! (Score:5, Funny)
"He does not consider gravity as fundamental, but as an emergent phenomenon that arises from a deeper microscropic reality."
If that doesn't make you the life of the party in one fell swoop, NOTHING ever will.
No kidding. Chicks really dig my emergent phenomenon.
Re:Summary of comments (Score:4, Funny)
In addition:
Someone is going to say "this violates conservation of energy/conservation of entropy/ blah" (even if it doesn't) and dismiss it. Also ignoring the fact that most new theories does violate something at the time of its discovery at some point
Another person is going to complain that this theory is crap but their favorite 'new thory' is the one, like, I dunno, "it's turtles all the way down" and this respects conservation of charge.
A "christian scientist" (LOL) is going to spin this as proof of Jesus or something.
Put theory to test in real world (Score:5, Funny)
I think we could put this to the test in the real world. We could gather various entities, some of which are known to have a very low concentration of information, like marketing people and bureaucrats, and see whether they cause a local reduction in gravity.
Re:My crazy idea about gravity. (Score:2, Funny)
Anyways, just may crazy messed up idea. No proof what-so-ever to back it up. Granted, I'm not ignorant to the real math a science we know today. After all, the written laws of physics is what gets us to the moon and mars. :)
Reminds me of a previous girlfriend who had a theory on tickling. She theorized there were little bubbles (coined 'tickle bubbles') under our skin that popped when we touched them, resulting in a tickling sensation.
Fuck hundreds of years of anatomy and biology.
Re:Comments from Lubos Motl (Score:4, Funny)
He's 'undecided' because he hasn't been observed yet.
Thanks, I'll be here all week...
Re:Summary of comments (Score:5, Funny)
Don't forget "correlation is not causation!"
Re:Just because the math works doesn't mean it's t (Score:1, Funny)
So this proves that information density is the cause of gravity?
That explains the Christians expectation of a holy ascent. 0 intellegence == 0 gravity.
Information (Score:5, Funny)
So... information wants to be free?
First Pluto, then gravity (Score:5, Funny)
Fundamental feature of the universe? (Score:1, Funny)
If gravity is no longer available as a fundamental feature of the universe... does that mean it's now a premium feature? Do I have to pay extra for that?
Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Just because the math works doesn't mean it's t (Score:5, Funny)
The one funny thing about the way the majority of people use math, "close does count", until you get to a certain advanced point. Then we say "this works for all but a few special cases... close enough"
Obviously Newtonian gravity is much more understandable to your average person than say general relativity and also offers a good aproximation of expected behaviors of the physical world.
I'd say there is a good chance it is all one Unified Field. When including torque in Einstein's equations (and not assuming you are locked on the spinning object), this guy's solution works from the micro to the macro. Check it out.
http://www.theresonanceproject.org/ [theresonanceproject.org]
Re:Just because the math works doesn't mean it's t (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed. The truth is, it is all a dream. My dream, in fact. It all emanates from me, I designed it all based on what you know as mathematical principles.
That assertion can also never be proved wrong, and it is mathematically sound.
You're pretty confident for a figment of my imagination....
Re:Awesome conversation starter! (Score:5, Funny)
No kidding. Chicks really dig my emergent phenomenon.
...but they always get deeply disappointed at the microscopic reality :(
Re:Just because the math works doesn't mean it's t (Score:5, Funny)
As part of a psychological experiment, two single men, a physicist and mathematician, were placed in an otherwise empty room with a beautiful naked women at the far end.
They were instructed that they'd be allowed to close half the distance to the women every 10 minutes. Disgusted at the obvious subterfuge, the mathematician walked away in disgust. But the physicist stayed behind, occasionally glancing at his watch.
The experimenters looked puzzled, then asked the physicist, "You do realize, of course, that mathematically speaking, you can never actually reach the woman?"
"Naturally", replied the physician, looking up. "But I can sure get close enough for all practical purposes!"
Re:Just because the math works doesn't mean it's t (Score:3, Funny)
Did anyone misread.. (Score:3, Funny)