It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Erik Verlinde just released the latest installment of his new theory of gravity. He now says he doesn’t need dark matter to explain the motions of stars in galaxies.
Theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde has a new theory of gravity, which describes gravity not a force but as an illusion. The theory says gravity is an emergent phenomenon, possible to be derived from the microscopic building blocks that make up our universe’s entire existence. This week, he published the latest installment of his theory showing that – if he’s correct – there’s no need for dark matter to describe the motions of stars in galaxies.
Verlinde, who is at the University of Amsterdam, first released his new theory in 2010. According to a statement released this week (November 8, 2016):
… gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon. In the same way that temperature arises from the movement of microscopic particles, gravity emerges from the changes of fundamental bits of information, stored in the very structure of spacetime.
New theory explains gravity better than Einstein's relativity
But now there's a new theory on the block that's based on the idea that the universe is a hologram, and it doesn't require dark matter or its elusive cousin, dark energy, to explain gravity on a larger scale, reports Phys.org.
So if gravity is emergent, like temperature is, that means it must be emergent from something. But from what? This is where Verlinde borrows from the holographic principle. His theory suggests that gravity is emergent from fundamental bits of information that are stored in the fabric of spacetime itself.
we think everything is actually as we describe them simply because of how we can perceive and see or hear things.
Verlinde could be right when he says Gravity is an emergent property and not a fundamental force. Verlinde's model explains the motion of objects at large scales without the need for dark matter and his theory supports the universe as a hologram.
In general, the behavior of the sub-atomic particles cannot be described by Netwon's Laws.
The laws which govern the behavior of the sub-atomic particles are completely different. It is impossible to assign a specific position and velocity to a particle. Each particle can be in a superposition of different states, which means that in some sense it is located at the same time in a whole region of space and has a whole range of velocities. If you measure the position (or the velocity) of the particle, you just get one of the values from that range, in random (possibly with different probabilities for each value). However, this is NOT because the particle actually HAD that position and you just hadn't known that, but the particle really HAD a whole range of positions the moment before the measurement. This is something strange and beautiful.
The ability of the particle to be in several different states simultaneously results in a well-known wave-particle duality: the sub-atomic particles (electrons, neutrons and other) can behave like waves and show interference.
A lot of the latest generations of telescopes are built to detect signals that humans can't perceive directly, such as radio, infrared, X-ray etc.
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
If science thought it had all the answers it would cease its drive towards discovery. Obviously we know we don't yet have the perfect description. Hence these theoretical physicists exploring new theories. That said, what the hell else would we be using other than our ability to perceive to formulate these descriptions? Channel the answers from angels?
“This is not the basis of a theory,” Dr. Verlinde explained. “I don’t pretend this to be a theory. People should read the words I am saying opposed to the details of equations.”
Dr. Padmanabhan said that he could see little difference between Dr. Verlinde’s and Dr. Jacobson’s papers and that the new element of an entropic force lacked mathematical rigor. “I doubt whether these ideas will stand the test of time,” he wrote in an e-mail message from India. Dr. Jacobson said he couldn’t make sense of it.
originally posted by: RP2SticksOfDynamite
If that were to be true, who or what is projecting the hologram and where did they come from? Not convinced!