Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Math Science

Emergent Gravity Disproved 102

Posted by timothy
from the what-does-this-guy-know? dept.
kdawson writes "A paper up on the ArXiv claims to disprove the gravity-from-entropy theory of Erik Verlinde, which we discussed soon after he introduced the idea in a symposium late in 2009. Archil Kobakhidze says that experiments measuring the effect of gravity on quantum particles (neutrons in this case) match results expected from classical Newtonian gravity, not Verlindian entropic gravity. Here is Kobakhidze's paper (PDF)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Emergent Gravity Disproved

Comments Filter:
  • Here we go again (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27, 2011 @12:27PM (#37228428)

    Kdawson, could you please try to have the first clue about something that you submit? This is a non-peer-reviewed article, fresh on the arXiv. It's a followup to an earlier article which was widely criticized within the community as being full of holes, and the arguments in this article are very very weak. At best it's an argument against entropic gravity, but it is a LONG way from a proof that entropic gravity is wrong.

    The way that neutron states are treated here is questionable - see http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4650 [arxiv.org] for a summary of what's wrong with them.

    Disclaimer: I am a gravitational theorist. I think gravity ISN'T entropic. However this paper is nowhere near sufficient to show that. I'd wait a LOT longer for the dust to settle on this one before making a strong statement one way or the other.

  • Motl comments (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sara Chan (138144) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @12:43PM (#37228522)
    Lubo Motl [wikipedia.org] has some additional, supportive, thoughts on his blog:
    Once more: gravity is not an entropic force [blogspot.com]
  • Re:Here we go again (Score:5, Informative)

    by bcrowell (177657) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @02:10PM (#37228922) Homepage

    Kdawson, could you please try to have the first clue about something that you submit?

    There's no reason to be so rude. In fact, I would consider the summary pretty accurate, although maybe not the title.

    This is a non-peer-reviewed article, fresh on the arXiv.

    Totally irrelevant. New research typically appears on arxiv first. That doesn't mean it's wrong.

    It's a followup to an earlier article which was widely criticized within the community as being full of holes, and the arguments in this article are very very weak.

    I'm not a specialist in this field (my specialty is experimental nuclear physics), but the impression I get as an outsider is that this is inaccurate. Actually many people in the field seem to find Kobakhidze's arguments very strong. I think the most fair summary would be that right now, the whole thing is controversial. Verlinde never claimed that he had a worked-out theory. It's always just been a rough heuristic. Even if it's right, it's wrong. What I mean by that is that it's at best a provisional picture (historically analogous to the Bohr atom) which needs to be reworked into a real theory (analogous to quantum mechanics). Just as there were no clear criteria for judging whether the Bohr model was a good idea or a dead end in 1915, there are no clear criteria for judging whether this idea is good or a dead end in 2011.

Riches: A gift from Heaven signifying, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." -- John D. Rockefeller, (slander by Ambrose Bierce)

Working...