Slashdot Mirror


New Theory of Gravity Might Explain Dark Matter (phys.org)

vikingpower writes: Dutch prodigy and Amsterdam University Professor Erik Verlinde published a paper on arXiv yesterday, November 7, titled "Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe." In the paper, Verlinde derives gravity from the so-called Holographic Principle, which -- simply put -- states that gravity emerges from the interplay between and entropy re-arrangement of sub-atomic "strings" that live in a negatively curved spacetime. At that level [...] spacetime and gravity are emergent from an underlying microscopic description in which they have no a priori meaning." Most importantly, Verlinde's paper has as a consequence that dark matter, nemesis of many an astronomer, is nothing more than an illusion. Verlinde, who was awarded the Dutch national Spinoza science prize in the recent past, already completed the tour de force of deriving Newtonian gravity from the same principles in a 2010 paper, also on arXiv. We are probably looking at Nobel-prize material here, as Verlinde is acknowledged by his peers to "go one better than Einstein's General Theory of Relativity." Slashdot reader turkeydance adds from a report via Forbes (Warning: source may be paywalled): As dark matter continues to vex astronomers, new solutions to the dark matter question are proposed. Most focus on pinning down the form of dark matter, while others propose modifying gravity to account for the effect. But a third proposal is simply to remove gravity from the equation. What if the effects of gravity aren't due to some fundamental force, but are rather an emergent effect due to other fundamental interactions? A new paper proposes just that, and if correct it could also explain the effects of dark matter.

7 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Disheartening by vikingpower · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OP here. Obviously, my submission had the bad luck of making it to the Slashdot front page simultaneously with the US presidential elections and their unexpected outcome. Yet I am appalled, truly appalled and disgusted, at what ACs have posted here (see above).

    It is now clear to me that after many, many years there is nothing anymore for me on Slashdot. This is it. The level had gone down already for years. The repeated and increasingly vocal racism and vulgarity, the inanity, the name-calling, the bigotry - it had already been putting me off for a long time. Yet I had hoped that, at least for such momentous scientific news as Verlinde's theory, there could have been a discussion worthy of that name.

    Slashdot's latest acquirer has done a prolly valiant job to try and turn things around, an effort before which I flourish my hat. It is clear to me, however, that it was too little and too late. I'm leaving slashdot. I will keep reading submissions as an anonymous reader, and that's it. So long, Slashdot !

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:Disheartening by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I understand your disgust, but keep in mind that an intelligent person who leaves is contributing as much to the demise of Slashdot as each troll who is added. Either way, the number of good voices compared to the trolls decreases by one.

      I hope you reconsider, because this is one of the more interesting articles I've read here in a long time. I just wish I was at a level where I could really grasp its meaning. (As it stands, my depth of physics stops somewhere in the area of general relativity; quantum physics is a bit confusing while string theory is like speaking a different language.)

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    2. Re:Disheartening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You shouldn't worry about it in this case. The moderation system worked as it should and all those vulgar comments got -1 so they are not visible for most people. I agree that things are far from perfect though. There is much room for improvement.

    3. Re:Disheartening by lxs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The main problem is allowing anonymous posters. There are good reasons for allowing this, and many ACs like yourself post well thought out comments.
      I don't know the solution to this. Perhaps having AC comments start at -1 (or a new -2 score only visible to active mods?)

      And then outright banning the hate filled dumbfucks.

    4. Re:Disheartening by NoNeeeed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think it's that there is more of the crap, it's that there's less of the good.

      Trolls and trash have been a part of /. since the early days. I have a low 6 figure UID and I can't remember a time when the GNAA and their ilk were not active here. The difference is that then the quality discussions would be numerous enough to make it appear very different. Once upon a time an article like this might gather a couple of hundred comments, many of them from practicing physicists discussing/criticising/explaining the work. Meanwhile the trolls and shitposters would be downvoted. Anyone reading at 3 and up would probably see some good discussion. Now news like this seems unlikely to get even 100 comments, few are from knowledgable people.

      It's like the water-level falling on a river and suddenly you can see all the crap that's been dumped there for years. With so few comments on most articles (there are only 3 articles on my front page with more than 100 comments), you end up reading at a lower level, so you see more of the crap beneath the water.

      I wish the new owners of /. well, and I hope they somehow manage to revive it, but I honestly think it's too late, discussion has moved to Reddit or more specialised websites with more active moderation systems. Reddit might be full of trash (including whole subreddits), but the volume is so high, that it's submerged underneath the vast mass and only visible if you choose to go and look for it most of the time.

  2. Re:Cue The Usual Suspects by quenda · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how there is no other explanation for the velocity discrepancies than dark matter.

    Whoever said that? I've read long ago that people were looking for refinements or new theories of gravity to explain the discrepancy.
      "Dark matter" is not even a "thing" - it is a placeholder for something unknown. A simple hypothesis. Could you say it is a bit like the cosmological constant?

  3. Re:I had thought of something similar by pgfuller · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Suppose you go down to the beach and make some measurements of "water waves". Does that prove that water is a fundamental force in the Universe? Or could water waves be the result of other fundamental forces?