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.
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Diablos
Yes he has and that's why his papers are being hotly debated in the scientific community. Like I said I don't think you have even read his papers or the recent papers that connect entanglement to gravity.
You said, you can also confuse other people in the Scientific community LOL. So everybody is stupid but you? Give me a break.
Show me where there's a recent update of the 2011 argument.
Show me where the Author of the 2011 argument has refuted anything Verlinde has said when Verlinde responded to the argument.
Show me a recent study or paper that uses this argument to try and refute Verlinde.
Like I said, you haven't even read the recent papers or updates so you're debating from the standpoint of blind ignorance.
We also review other areas where there are likely conflicts pointing to the need to replace or revise GR to represent correctly observations and consistent theoretical framework.
1 Answer
Richard Sagan
Written Sep 10
I’m not sure this is it, and maybe it is wrong or not deep enough. Nonetheless my five cents from the top of my head:The simplest consequence of the theorem is that you can’t “explain” gravitons as some composite particle (a la mesons), formed with two gauge fields coming from some gauge symmetry e.g. som SU(N), in 4D.
Some way to avoid the theorem is by relating gauge fields in d dimensions and gravitons in d+1 (like in AdS/CFT). (Find more in pg 4, 5 of arxiv.org... )
If I’m wrong let me know, appreciated
142 Views
Verlinde's 2010 paper:
On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Diablos
It's obvious that you haven't read anything Verlinde said and you haven't bothered reading his papers. So you blindly post things without any understanding.
You post a paper from 2009 when Verlinde's first paper was 2010 and you report another paper that doesn't directly challenge Verlinde but asks questions about emergent gravity and there should be questions.
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Diablos
You're saying questions mean the theory is invalid. That's just kooky talk. There's still questions about General Relativity.
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Diablos
Mathematical challenges of General Relativity
www1.mat.uniroma1.it...(2)/105-122.pdf
General Relativity and Cosmology: Unsolved Questions and Future Directions
We also review other areas where there are likely conflicts pointing to the need to replace or revise GR to represent correctly observations and consistent theoretical framework.
arxiv.org...
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Diablos
Initial Value Problem in General Relativity
arxiv.org...
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Diablos
I can go on and on. Questions doesn't mean something is invalid. The problem you have is that you haven't even bothered to read Verlinde's papers so you're just sniping from a point of blind ignorance.
originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Diablos
Yes he has and that's why his papers are being hotly debated in the scientific community. Like I said I don't think you have even read his papers or the recent papers that connect entanglement to gravity.
You said, you can also confuse other people in the Scientific community LOL. So everybody is stupid but you? Give me a break.
Show me where there's a recent update of the 2011 argument.
Show me where the Author of the 2011 argument has refuted anything Verlinde has said when Verlinde responded to the argument.
The interference pattern is influenced by gravity; but it is not destroyed by gravity which is what would happen if you were assuming that the neutron actually interacts with many more degrees of freedom that are responsible for the distance-dependent entropy. Those degrees of freedom would constantly "measure" the neutron and destroyed the interference pattern.
3.Conclusions
We have shown that if we conjecture that the source of thermodynamic system, ρ and p, are also the source of gravity: (ρ + p)gravitational source = (ρ + p)thermal source, thermal quantities, such as entropy, temperature, and chemical potential, can induce gravitational effects, or gravity can induce thermal effects. For Newtonian approximation, the gravitational potential is related to the temperature, entropy, chemical potential, and particle number, which implies that gravity is entropic force only for systems with constant temperature and zero chemical potential. For general case, gravity is not an entropic force. Whether the results obtained here can be generalized to the case of modiﬁed gravity, such as F(R) gravity [10] and F(G) gravity [18], is worthy of investigation. All the analyses have been carried out without assuming a speciﬁc expression of temperature or horizon. For a static system at thermal equilibrium in general relativity, the temperature of the perfect ﬂuid may take the form, T√−g00 = const., which is called the Tolman temperature [34–36]. Whether the temperature in Equation (1) can be taken as Tolman temperature is also worthy of further investigation. The results we obtained conﬁrm that there is a profound connection between gravity and thermodynamics
Abstract
General theory of relativity (or Lovelock extensions) is a dynamical theory; given an initial conguration on a space-like hypersurface, it makes a denite prediction of the nal conguration. Recent developments suggest that gravity may be described in terms of macroscopic parameters. It nds a concrete manifestation in the uidgravity correspondence. Most of the eorts till date has been to relate equilibrium congurations in gravity with uid variables. In order for the emergent paradigm to be truly successful, it has to provide a statistical mechanical derivation of how a given initial static conguration evolves into another. In this essay, we show that the energy transport equation governed by the uctuations of the horizon-uid is similar to Raychaudhuri equation and, hence gravity is truly emergent.Essay for the Gravity Research Foundation essay competition in 2015
Submitted on 30 March 2015
Emergent phenomena occur when simple interactions working cooperatively create more complex interaction [1]. Physically, simple interactions occur at smaller length scales (microscopic level), and collective behaviour manifests at much larger length....
originally posted by: greenreflections
a reply to: neoholographic
Verlinde's 2010 paper:
On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton
Thanks for the links. Interesting. Unclear to me how does his approach explains matter having certain form visually?
I understand his finite number of individual holo screens where all action takes place, not clear how he interprets 'holographic principle' he refers to in his intro a lot without giving even two lines as how he understands it.
Another thing, he tries to tie temperature to a fact that number of 2D holo screens combined create some sort of a closed volume where matter becomes discrete confined to physically present boarders (formed beyond which can not 'leak' any further and that is raising temperature which drives the rest of his gravity concept). Not clear where he gets his 'temperature' from?
I only somewhat agree.
And this is not holographic principle at play. I will try to comment later about it to draw differences of what it is from what paper author suggests.
And he never explained how 3D visual arises...
To me, looks like when three events on three interlaced 2D surfaces create 3D object combining opportunity potential. Like, if in a dark room I shoot three flash light beams and their beams form tri angle mutual spot at point of intersect sort of creating discrete volume room for matter to occupy.
This would imply, of course, that three events on all three interlaced 2D planes must sync in location and time to project a 'physical product', concrete physical object in the middle of all three, for example. The ones that not synced are passed as virtual potentials (virtual particles).
Side note: Cube shape must be most basic compare to sphere. In this context to accommodate cube six planes enough. We can view cube from all sides that are equal and indistinguishable.
cheers)