It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Erik Verlinde says no need for Dark Matter and Gravity is emergent

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Your welcome.

Time could actually factor in as a physical dimension beyond the norm in relation to the electron cloud.

One way of relating is that Consciousness can transcend the separation inherent to the frames from the perspective of the electron cloud as well as otherwise in respect to Multiverse theory.

Hey Neo,

Holographic theory is rather interesting especially when considering it fundamentally and then relating it to at least 10 dimensions. I disagree with the idea that we exist in an illusion (as we have discussed), but rather a representation of reality and perhaps enough to allow for survival.

Consciousness transcends all states that can be perceived as matter.



edit on 17-11-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit




posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   


One of the most exciting ideas in modern physics is that gravity is not a traditional force, like electromagnetic or nuclear forces. Instead, it is an emergent phenomenon that merely looks like a traditional force.

This approach has been championed by Erik Verlinde at the University of Amsterdam who put forward the idea in 2010. He suggested that gravity is merely a manifestation of entropy in the Universe, which always increases according to the second law of thermodynamics. This causes matter distribute itself in a way that maximises entropy. And the effect of this redistribution looks like a force which we call gravity.

Much of the excitement over Verlinde’s idea is that it provides a way to reconcile the contradictions between gravity, which works on a large scale, and quantum mechanics, which works on a tiny scale.

The key idea is that gravity is essentially a statistical effect. As long as each particle is influenced by a statistically large number of other particles, gravity emerges. That’s why it’s a large-scale phenomenon.

But today, Archil Kobakhidze at The University of Melbourne in Australia points to a serious problem with this approach.

He naturally asks how gravity can influence quantum particles.

Kobakhidze argues that since each quantum particle must be described by a large number of other particles, this leads to a particular equation that describes the effect of gravity.

But here’s the thing: the conventional view of gravity leads to a different equation.

In other words, the emergent and traditional views of gravity make different predictions about the gravitational force a quantum particle ought to experience. And that opens the way for an experimental test.

As it happens, physicists have been measuring the force of gravity on neutrons for ten yeas or so. And…wait for the drum roll… the results exactly match the predictions of traditional gravitational theory, says Kobakhidze.

“Experiments on gravitational bound states of neutrons unambiguously disprove the entropic origin of gravitation,” he says.

That’s an impressive piece of physics. It’ll be interesting to see how Verlinde and his supporters respond.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1108.4161: Once More: Gravity Is Not An Entropic Force.


www.technologyreview.com...
edit on 17-11-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai


Consciousness transcends all states that can be perceived as matter.


This I agree with.

I teeter back and forth between believing that consciousness transcends information or that information transcends consciousness.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom


Some argue that a doppelganger is relatable only as a statistical value.

Chaos theory in retrospect could suggest otherwise.

Anything created at the same time despite distance or separated otherwise could very well be interconnected.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

You sound like someone I'd get along and like to have a beer with.

You going to be at Art Basel in two weeks?



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom



Welcome to Art Basel

Since 1970, Art Basel’s goal has been to connect the world's premier galleries and their patrons, as well serving as a meeting point for the international artworld. Now, over forty years later, its three fairs - in Basel, Hong Kong and Miami Beach - rank as the premier shows of their kind, presenting 20th and 21st century art with a strong curatorial perspective.
Our reputation for showing high quality work has attracted leading international galleries and collectors, offering visitors the most important art from around the world.


www.artbasel.com...


Send me a PM when you are in Miami Beach.



posted on Nov, 17 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Will do.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Diablos

No it's not and that's a paper from 2011 that was answered by Verlinde. There will always be questions and challenges and there should be there's still questions about SR and GR as well as quantum mechanics but every question doesn't mean a theory is refuted this is just the scientific process.



It was not answered by Verlinde in any meaningful context, I'm afraid. Unless he can show mathematically how his theory of entropic gravity can behave like the field theory gravitational force (i.e mediated by spin-2 graviton, has an associated gravitational potential, etc) which the bound-states experiment are consistent with, he has no plausible objection.



originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Diablos
This is why support for this idea is growing and Verlinde just updated his findings and it shows from the basic idea of information theory you can derive the exact equations of GR and also get Newton's laws of gravity. This also ties into the entropy of entanglement and it's growing connection to gravity.


Please show me this derivation. Judging by the fact you don't realize Newtonian gravity follows trivially from GR in the limit of small curvature, I have my suspicions.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Diablos
So questions have been asked and they should be because this is the scientific process but nothing has been refuted.


You're right in the sense that there really is nothing to be refuted to begin with.
edit on 18-11-2016 by Diablos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Diablos

Like I said, it was answered.

Verlinde: "An important ingredient is that the timescale of the microscopic dynamics needs to be much faster than the macroscopic movements. That is to say, the macroscopic movements should not induce any quantum traditions between the microscopic states."

"It appears that when one applies this reasoning to gravitation, the result is that the timescale of the fast dynamics is determined by the red shift. At gravitational horizons the separation of time scales will break down, and the system will become truly thermodynamic."

"An interesting point is that in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation the next order correction to the adiabatic ['slow macro-dynamics'] approximation is given by a magnetic force resulting from the Berry Phase. This causes vector potentials to appear. I believe this to be at the basis of further emergent phenomena. I can't tell you more at this stage. You have to wait till my next article is out."


It's silly to list a paper from 2011 that hasn't been updated and and then say this refutes what Verlinde is saying. It doesn't and the evidence today is even stronger. Did you even bother to read the new paper by Verlinde or are you stuck in 2011 with an old question that has been answered. I doubt you even read the new paper or any updates. Here it is:

Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe

arxiv.org...

Submitted November 7th 2016.

This also ties into the growing connection between the entropy of entanglement and gravity.

Here's another paper:

Lectures on Gravity and Entanglement


The AdS/CFT correspondence provides quantum theories of gravity in which spacetime and gravitational physics emerge from ordinary non-gravitational quantum systems with many degrees of freedom. Recent work in this context has uncovered fascinating connections between quantum information theory and quantum gravity, suggesting that spacetime geometry is directly related to the entanglement structure of the underlying quantum mechanical degrees of freedom and that aspects of spacetime dynamics (gravitation) can be understood from basic quantum information theoretic constraints. In these notes, we provide an elementary introduction to these developments, suitable for readers with some background in general relativity and quantum field theory. The notes are based on lectures given at the CERN Spring School 2014, the Jerusalem Winter School 2014, the TASI Summer School 2015, and the Trieste Spring School 2015.


arxiv.org...

Submitted August 31, 2016.

Like I said, I doubt you have read any of these things and you're stuck on a question from 2011 that has been answered. Questions need to be asked but when people blindly quote things then that's just dishonest.

You didn't even know that Verlinde's theory reproduces the equations from GR and Newton's Laws of Gravity so you haven't even looked at the issue so I know you haven't read any of the recent papers.
edit on 18-11-2016 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

I agree, the holographic principle is very interesting and it points to life after death. For years, it has been said nothing survives material death because there's nothing that can exist outside of the material body. This shows that information has this diembodied existence outside of the particles it's describing.

There was also a recent study that says the wave function is a nonphysical reality.

The wave-function is real but nonphysical: A view from counterfactual quantum cryptography


Counterfactual quantum cryptography (CQC) is used here as a tool to assess the status of the quantum state: Is it real/ontic (an objective state of Nature) or epistemic (a state of the observer's knowledge)? In contrast to recent approaches to wave function ontology, that are based on realist models of quantum theory, here we recast the question as a problem of communication between a sender (Bob), who uses interaction-free measurements, and a receiver (Alice), who observes an interference pattern in a Mach-Zehnder set-up. An advantage of our approach is that it allows us to define the concept of "physical", apart from "real". In instances of counterfactual quantum communication, reality is ascribed to the interaction-freely measured wave function (ψ) because Alice deterministically infers Bob's measurement. On the other hand, ψ does not correspond to the physical transmission of a particle because it produced no detection on Bob's apparatus. We therefore conclude that the wave function in this case (and by extension, generally) is real, but not physical. Characteristically for classical phenomena, the reality and physicality of objects are equivalent, whereas for quantum phenomena, the former is strictly weaker. As a concrete application of this idea, the nonphysical reality of the wavefunction is shown to be the basic nonclassical phenomenon that underlies the security of CQC.


arxiv.org...

Again, what's the culprit? Information.

Information is transmitted between Alice and Bob without a physical medium. This sounds like telepathy and if we have a quantum mind, it will make these things even clearer.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
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.


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.


earthsky.org...

Wow!

So everything is a construct of information. This is essentially the holographic principle. There's no volume and everything we see as 3D is really a projection of information on a 2D surface area. Here's more:


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.


www.mnn.com...

So what he's saying is, Gravity emerges when these fundamental bits that are stored in the fabric of spacetime change. This is very interesting as Gravity is also being tied to the entropy of entanglement.

In this instance, entropy can be seen as the amount of information contained in an area of spacetime. Any change in this information can increase entropy and gravity emerges. So gravity is an entropic force that emerges instead of a fundamentel force of nature.

From idea of information entropy, you can derive Einstein’s equations of general relativity exactly.



So our universe is processing and projecting vast amounts of information on a 2D surface area. Here's a good discussion on this topic from Leonard Susskind.



One would think that this would be extremely easy to prove/disprove. Any change of information in any given area of space time would cause a gravity fluctuation instantly if it were true.

His hypothesis only stands as long as we don't know which particular information causes gravity, and therefor -- we can't change that information to produce a fluctuation. I.E. He proposes that SOME PIECE of information is responsible for gravity, but that's very literally the exact same explanation we already have -- when you truncate it.

It's the same argument as God vs Holographic Universe. They both 100% have the exact same problem in them. If God, who made him. If holographic universe, who created it? The creator created it, the creator would be god, wouldn't it?

Literally the exact same explanation, it's just in new age words.

In other words, Dark Matter/Energy IS the information that produces gravity in Erik's theory. He didn't postulate anything new at all -- he just redefined or relabeled the same unanswered question. It's a different interpretation or outward expression of the same exact identical observation.

It's like -- calling a refrigerator a cooling box -- it's the same thing, different word.

Also, holographic theory can't be a 3d image projecting onto 2d space -- because there are indeed four dimensions. X-Y-Z-T -- we have depth height width and time, period.

You can't say "It's two dimensional, but curved" because the second it curves, it's no longer two dimensional, so considering we know you can bend and curve space, we know space is factually three dimensions.
edit on 18-11-2016 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You said:

However, it is inconsistent with current experimental data:
I didn't say that. Diablo said that. I said "Verlinde's own comments about his own idea are some of the most problematic, such as that where he is saying that he hasn't defined his idea very precisely".

Can you imagine if Einstein had published his general theory of relativity but said "sorry but it's not really a theory and I don't have the math"?

But he didn't, he had a theory and the math and no idea from Verlinde or anybody else stands to replace relativity without both the theory and the supporting math, meaning he needs to precisely define his idea.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic



Sometimes a wave function will specify a definite position (all the amplitude at one position).

But often it will specify multiple positions (nonzero amplitude at many positions).

Then the particle is in a superposition of different positions.


consc.net...

In the context of a quantum mind there would be no place it could not relate to as long as it within its comprehension.

What is the wave function of the brain?

Generally speaking we do not consider that Biology is represented to scale.

In that in relation to the wave function we are conscious and in a matter of speaking an exacting translation.

And in consideration why should it not be?
edit on 18-11-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   


Background: Observation in quantum mechanics[edit]

In the orthodox Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics predicts only the probabilities for different outcomes of pre-specified observations. What constitutes an "observer" or an "observation" is not directly specified by the theory, and the behavior of a system upon observation is completely different than its usual behavior: the wavefunction that describes a system spreads out into an ever larger superposition of different possible situations. However, during observation, the wavefunction describing the system collapses to one of several options. If there is no observation, this collapse does not occur, and none of the options ever become less likely.

It can be predicted using quantum mechanics, absent a collapse postulate, that an observer observing a quantum superposition will turn into a superposition of different observers seeing different things. The observer will have a wavefunction which describes all the possible outcomes. Still, in actual experience, an observer never senses a superposition, but always senses that one of the outcomes has occurred with certainty. This apparent conflict between a wavefunction description and classical experience is called the problem of observation (see: Measurement problem).




The only form of interactionist dualism that has seemed even remotely tenable in the contemporary picture is one that exploits certain properties of quantum mechanics. There are two ways this might go. First, some [e.g., Eccles 1986] have appealed to the existence of quantum indeterminacy, and have suggested that a nonphysical consciousness might be responsible for filling the resultant causal gaps, determining which values some physical magnitudes might take within an apparently "probabilistic" distribution… This is an audacious and interesting suggestion, but it has a number of problems… A second way in which quantum mechanics bears on the issue of causal closure lies with the fact that in some interpretations of the quantum formalism, consciousness itself plays a vital causal role, being required to bring about the so-called "collapse of the wave-function." This collapse is supposed to occur upon any act of measurement; and in one interpretation, the only way to distinguish a measurement from a no measurement is via the presence of consciousness. This theory is certainly not universally accepted (for a start, it presupposes that consciousness is not itself physical, surely contrary to the views of most physicists), and I do not accept it myself, but in any case it seems that the kind of causal work consciousness performs here is quite different from the kind required for consciousness to play a role in directing behavior… In any case, all versions of interactionist dualism have a conceptual problem that suggests that they are less successful in avoiding epiphenomenalism than they might seem; or at least they are no better off than [naturalistic dualism]. Even on these views, there is a sense in which the phenomenal is irrelevant. We can always subtract the phenomenal component from any explanatory account, yielding a purely causal component.[7]

— David Chalmers, "The Irreducibility of Consciousness" in The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You said:

However, it is inconsistent with current experimental data:
I didn't say that. Diablo said that. I said "Verlinde's own comments about his own idea are some of the most problematic, such as that where he is saying that he hasn't defined his idea very precisely".

Can you imagine if Einstein had published his general theory of relativity but said "sorry but it's not really a theory and I don't have the math"?

But he didn't, he had a theory and the math and no idea from Verlinde or anybody else stands to replace relativity without both the theory and the supporting math, meaning he needs to precisely define his idea.


What?

Have you even bothered to read his papers?

You said:

"He needs to precisely define his idea."

LOL!! Are you serious?

He has and if you read his papers you will see that. It's "PRECISELY" why the scientific community and news outlets are debating what he has said. I suggest you actually read his papers instead of harping on something from 2011 that has been answered.

Verlinde's 2010 paper:

On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton

arxiv.org...

Verlinde's paper from November 2016:

Emergent Gravity and the Dark Universe

arxiv.org...

It's utter nonsense to say he hasn't precisely defined what he's saying and I doubt you have even bothered to read either of his papers.

There's still questions to be answered but to act like these issues aren't well defined because you can't refute them makes no sense.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Why would Entropy result in Cosmic Inflation?

How do you explain inflation when not considering an effect upon more than 4 dimensions?



Inflation from extra dimensions
J H Yoon and D R Brill

Abstract

In Kaluza-Klein theory it is known that the dimensional reduction induced by an n-dimensional (non-Abelian) isometry group G is consistent with (4+n)-dimensional general covariance. With the isometry group as the fiber it is shown that the scalar sector of the theory defined by the Einstein-Cartan-Hilbert action in (4+n) dimensions can drive a successful inflation in a cosmological setting, if one identifies the conformably transformed metric as the new physical space-time metric and assumes non-vanishing torsional bilinear. The vacuum, which has vanishing gauge and scalar fields, is found to be a four-dimensional Minkowski space with the Cartan-Killing metric on the group space for a compact group G.


iopscience.iop.org...;jsessionid=B91AE7C98DD1F1176E4508A40BC988CD.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org




edit on 19-11-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Its like suggesting the matter form in relation to cosmic inflation resulted from interfering with space-time in such a way that made inflation possible, as a result of a change in conditions related to space-time beyond 4 dimensions.

The inflation itself could be representative of an inherent relationship between space-time and matter fundamentally.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I didn't say that. Diablo said that. I said "Verlinde's own comments about his own idea are some of the most problematic, such as that where he is saying that he hasn't defined his idea very precisely".

Can you imagine if Einstein had published his general theory of relativity but said "sorry but it's not really a theory and I don't have the math"?

But he didn't, he had a theory and the math and no idea from Verlinde or anybody else stands to replace relativity without both the theory and the supporting math, meaning he needs to precisely define his idea.


You're wasting time discussing with these ideologues. The 2011 paper are the biggest refutation of Verlinde, and what they fail to understand is unless Verlinde's non-theory can predict those gravitational bound-states results accurately as well as other things that current standard theory (semi-classical GR) does not, his contentions and counters are worthless.

They think deriving an equation amounts to nothing more than technobabble preceding the simple writing down of equation and proclaiming wildly their "theory" reduces to the current theories in appropriate limits.


This is what happens when everyone believes they are an expert, that no one is wrong, and you can vote out the standard model like you can vote out political establishments i.e the scientific establishment we are all apparently apart of, which interestingly enough Erik Verlinde is as well being a renowned ex-string theorist.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Diablos


Hypocrisy.... answer the question?

How are you defining cosmic inflation?
edit on 20-11-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Diablos

You said:

The 2011 paper are the biggest refutation of Verlinde

No it's not and this is why Verlinde's papers are still being hotly debated in the scientific community and throughout scientific news organizations. Do you think everyone in the scientific community debating these issues is just stupid?

Of course it doesn't refute Verlinde.

Verlinde: "An important ingredient is that the timescale of the microscopic dynamics needs to be much faster than the macroscopic movements. That is to say, the macroscopic movements should not induce any quantum traditions between the microscopic states."

"It appears that when one applies this reasoning to gravitation, the result is that the timescale of the fast dynamics is determined by the red shift. At gravitational horizons the separation of time scales will break down, and the system will become truly thermodynamic."

"An interesting point is that in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation the next order correction to the adiabatic ['slow macro-dynamics'] approximation is given by a magnetic force resulting from the Berry Phase. This causes vector potentials to appear. I believe this to be at the basis of further emergent phenomena. I can't tell you more at this stage. You have to wait till my next article is out."


Again, you need to actually try reading Verlinde's papers and you would know there's a reason people are debating his theories today. If the 2011 paper refuted Verlinde why is he still being published? Why are people throughout the scientific community still debating these issues?




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join