Slashdot Mirror


The End Of Gravity As a Fundamental Force

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."

17 of 650 comments (clear)

  1. Summary of comments by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least half the comments on this story will boil down to one or more of the following:

    • String theory is bunk. I know this because I heard someone call it "string theology" once and I thought that was clever.
    • This idea is bunk because I think it contradicts something I vaguely remember from the Physics 101 course I took as a requirement for my CS degree ten years ago.
    • Modern physics is bunk because nothing can move in spacetime. Visit my blog to learn the truth!
    • Everyone knows the unifying force that holds the universe together is not gravity, but electricity. We have books, too!
    • Ivory-tower egghead academics want to keep all their science locked away behind paywalls! How are we supposed to evaluate this if we can't read the paper?!?
    • Modern science is bunk. These stupid liberal academics should just read the Bible.
    • YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID!

    There. That should save everyone some time.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    1. Re:Summary of comments by McGiraf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, I think I'll refrain from posting now. Thanks for saving my time.

    2. Re:Summary of comments by abigor · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't forget "correlation is not causation!"

  2. Textbooks by marciot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Damn it. I knew I should have sold back my college Physics textbooks when I had the chance...

  3. Awesome conversation starter! by uradu · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Awesome conversation starter! by grcumb · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    2. Re:Awesome conversation starter! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No kidding. Chicks really dig my emergent phenomenon.

      ...but they always get deeply disappointed at the microscopic reality :(

  4. Getting paranoia to a new level by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Funny

    Like when you study information theory because don't like physics, and the basis of physic world, like gravitation, turns to be information theory.

  5. Re:Just because the math works doesn't mean it's t by phantomfive · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Qxe4
  6. Re:Golden ratio by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have a gut feeling that golden ratio will fit into all this somewhere.

    Provided the golden ratio is exactly 42.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  7. Put theory to test in real world by noidentity · · Score: 4, Funny

    In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.

    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.

  8. Information by Joren · · Score: 4, Funny

    In his theory, gravity exists because of a difference in concentration of information in the empty space between two masses and its surroundings.

    So... information wants to be free?

    --
    -- Joren
  9. First Pluto, then gravity by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Funny

    Will science leave me anything I learned in class ?

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  10. Re:Stop posting articles from arXiv! by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's your degree in? Ecofeminism, or postmodern comparative religion?

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  11. Re:Just because the math works doesn't mean it's t by patiodragon · · 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/

  12. Re:Just because the math works doesn't mean it's t by snowgirl · · 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....

    --
    WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
  13. Re:Just because the math works doesn't mean it's t by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, 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!"

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.