Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by tloh (451585) on Saturday August 27, 2011 @02:51PM (#37228846)

    That is a poor excuse for choosing to express yourself as a rude condescending jerk. kdawson may not have the subject matter expertise to evaluate the strength/merit of what he felt was something cool and worth sharing - news for nerds. But how is it you choose to ignore timothy's role as a gate keeper for what is worthy of slashdot? Your own disclaimer express an opinion that the dust has yet to settle - even among experts. Yet you pull no punches in expressing your own opinion and expect us to take it at face value. That isn't the actions of someone fearful of future funding. It is the mark of someone too arrogant to acknowledge progress in science as necessitated by a series of meaningful arguments and counter-arguments within a framework of mutual understanding. What understanding did you attempt to foster here? I'm afraid you have a very skewed understanding of the slashdot community if you expect the link you posted to really mean anything for the majority of readers here. Take a good look at the replies to your post - half of them are cracking jokes and the other half are decidedly not impressed about the nature of scholarly publication. When your done feeling smug and self-important it would be helpful to consider how to undo the damage your post did by obfuscating the subject. An expert is useless if (s)he is incapable of communicating that expertise.

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.