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.

 

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

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   
This is Ad-hoc reasoning more than an actual scientific counter-argument. He would have to demonstrate how vector potentials in the expansion can directly effect the entropy in the neutron space state. You also confuse certain people in the scientific community refuting this as an ongoing raging debate involving the entire scientific community. The Em drive also is "published" and has certain scientists responding to all of the excitement, does that necessarily increase its validity?

The irony here being that you are employing an appeal to authority, when the shtick of you and the other contrarian geniuses on here is that you are against appealing to authority and establishment science. The bottom line is that it does not fly as a cogent scientific argument, and until Verlinde can come up with a mathematically consistent model that is consistent with all of the experimental results thus far (like the bound-states) and makes testable predictions, it is of absolutely no interest and is about as physically relevant as are parallel universes.




posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   

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.



Again, you are more interested in being "contrarian" than actually understanding the science at a fundamental level. Furthermore, you have now started to construct strawmen and put words in my mouth. Clearly the disposition of those who are right!

If you want more:

Challenges for Emergent Gravity

Constraints on emergent gravity


And the mathematical theorem that invalidates Verlinde's hypothesis:

Witten-Weinberg Theorem



The rabbit hole goes far deeper and even more troubling issues need to be addressed than the rather simple gravitational bound-states issue that can only be explained consistent by a gravitational gauge-field. It is actually low-hanging fruit and the most obvious violation of entropic gravity, at least in the way currently formulated by Verlinde.

Is it possible all of this wrong? Yes. Is it possible every experiment regarding our understanding of relativity and quantum fields is wrong? Absolutely. Throwing all of that out in favor of Verlinde's musings is, unfortunately, not science. You can keep quoting Verlinde's ad-hoc explanations as much as you like, but that won't make his speculations any more grounded in science than the first time you have done it.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   
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.

You're saying questions mean the theory is invalid. That's just kooky talk. There's still questions about General Relativity.

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...

Initial Value Problem in General Relativity

arxiv.org...

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.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   


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


www.quora.com...

Further...

arxiv.org...


edit on 20-11-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:50 PM
link   
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)









edit on 20-11-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-11-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   

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.



These are non-contentions. Your fallacious argument amounts to using dates in establishing the veracity of a proposal or paper. If someone tomorrow were to write a paper on methods that would allow measuring all observables of an elementary particle simultaneously, and I cited the constraints imposed by the uncertainty principle and the postulates of quantum mechanics, shouldn't your response amount to "Why are you citing physics from 70 years ago? Why didn't you read the paper? Why didn't you go and talk with the author of the paper? You are obviously the one in the wrong!".

That is not how science works. Until Verlinde can produce convincing arguments that nullify the constraints imposed in those papers and theorems, not to mention produce a viable model that fits the experimental data better than conventional models, very few people outside of a bunch of laymen on a conspiracy site will take it seriously.

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.


You love putting words in people's mouths, don't you? For starters, I never made such a claim. I claimed that Verlinde's formulation of entropic gravity violates established theorems in mathematical physics as well as experimental data. That is a completely different ballgame than simply raising questions that a given model does not answer. But, maybe you are new to all of this.

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...



Here you go again. Mathematical challenges and testing the limits of where a theory applies and where it breaks down does not imply all theories are therefore equally valid or raise as many challenges. You continue to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Diablos
Initial Value Problem in General Relativity

arxiv.org...


Oh, dear. It seems you don't understand what an initial-value-problem (IVP) actually is and are trying to cite it as a criticism of GR.

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.


The real problem is I have, against my better judgement, continued to engage you and hopefully engage in your clear "open mind". I was absolutely wrong.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Diablos

You said:

I claimed that Verlinde's formulation of entropic gravity violates established theorems in mathematical physics as well as experimental data.

You have no idea as to what you're talking about. You haven't even read either of Verlinde's paper.

Show me exactly in Verlinde's papers where he violates established theorems

Of course you can't do this because you haven't read them. Sadly for you, I like reading these papers. The only one you posted that's dated in 2012 after Verlinde's first paper, never responds directly to Verlinde when talking about The Weinberg-Witten theorem. The paper you posted is called Challenges to Emergent Gravity. For some strange reason you want to equate challenges to mean it's invalid which is ASININE.

This is what is said:

It is this interaction of gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance that provides the loophole.‡

Now, if a model of emergent gravity reproduces general relativity above some length scale L, the same loophole should apply at that scale. The question becomes whether the Weinberg Witten theorem restricts the model at shorter scales. Possible solutions include [14, 135]


If you bother to actually read the paper, you will see that the Author gives short shrift to this argument and tthe Author even knocks it down IN THE PAPER YOU POSTED TO REFUTE EMERGENT GRAVILITY LOL! It goes on to say:

1. Broken Lorentz invariance: in analog models [19] and models in which the graviton is a Goldstone boson for broken Lorentz invariance [14, 133, 136], for instance, the fundamental degrees of freedom are not Lorentz invariant, evading one condition of the theorem.

2. Nonlocality: in Sundrum’s “fat graviton” model [137], and arguably the AdS/CFT correspondence, gravitons are nonlocal, and do not couple to a local stress-energy tensor.

3. No spin two fields below L: if spin two fields first emerge at the same scale as general relativity, there is no room for the Weinberg-Witten theorem to apply. For example, in models in which the background manifold is topological [29–32, 72], there may be no nontrivial conserved stress-energy tensor at all at small scales.

4. Emergent spacetime: in type II models of emergence, the basic setting of the Weinberg Witten theorem, spin two excitations in a flat spacetime, is absent at the fundamental level, though one must check carefully at larger scales.


arxiv.org...

This is why you need to actually read the papers that you post. He actually refutes your whole argument especially the argument when it comes to Ads/CFT correspondence which is connected to entanglement and gravity as well.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   

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.


You mean this one?

arxiv.org...

I personally believe that Verlinde's work deserves to be taken seriously but also recognize that there are sharp challenges and the work as it stands doesn't successfully extend to quantum mechanical situations which have been investigated experimentally.



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.


motls.blogspot.com...

Entropic gravity provides a mechanistic explanation for gravity (unlike classical gravity which assumes it a priori), but that mechanistic explanation is still wrong when applied directly to quantum mechanical neutrons which are in clearly quantum-interfering states, and show experimentally clean patterns agreeing with classical gravity.

So entropic gravity is not yet a theory of quantum gravity even less than classical gravity + Schroedinger equation.

Getting dark matter right quantitatively (2016) is a nice find, but I don't think the theory is remotely close to being settled.

Entropic gravity may still yet be a 'large N limit' of something else as yet undiscovered.


edit on 22-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-11-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

"Entropic gravity may still yet be a 'large N limit' of something else as yet undiscovered."

So your basically saying it is outside current comprehension to understand this?

That is obvious...but to suggest that it is not relevant well that is just plain silly.













edit on 22-11-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   
In consideration what happens to our math when we try to understand the internal functioning's of a black hole.

Infinity?



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   
This is from 2014...



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




file:///C:/Users/New%20User/Downloads/entropy-16-04483%20(1).pdf

From 2015...



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....


file:///C:/Users/New%20User/Downloads/Ver9-Grav_Essay.pdf


edit on 23-11-2016 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Nov, 24 2016 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Essentially you can "copy and paste", the offered links in question upon a search and then review the pdf file in question.



posted on Nov, 26 2016 @ 08:13 PM
link   

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)










Fourier transform and one more better article, point to consolidation and forming of matter packets ideas. Something to read and think about.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Turns out I would refer to this particular understanding of 3D object formation using concept of inverse Fourier transformation, also called Fourier synthesis. Where Fourier transform decomposes an image into individual frequencies, inverse version of it re assembles 3D object out of overlay of frequencies that possibly exist on independent individual planes.

Lets say we have three of 2D sheets crossing each other under 60 degrees angle. Visually this would form a triangle of 'volume' in between (say at plank scale, since hypothetically I can assume 2D planes are crossing each other at very close distance where all three while being independent still can affect each other under certain conditions), a potential packet within which a physical object can be formed (fit as a meaningful whole).
Frequencies fluctuations on each of three planes would be spontaneous, of different energetic peaks and travel directions (travel because it is not a standing wave, wavelength (distance between adjacent crests, would move on 2D coordinates).

Many say events are of pure chance or realized opportunity. It does seems so to me too. With little remark, an opportunity will arise sooner or later, but it will for sure, meaning time factor is hard coded into the word 'opportunity'. Since 'time' has an arrow, a positive, forward motion, it insures that opportunities are inevitable, a must event to happen. This makes our universe a 'positive' with '+' sign.


Each 2D plane is seething with energetic fluctuations. These can be looked at as liner individual frequencies traveling in all directions on that plane. With all three planes put together under 60 degrees angle, I can picture a situation where wave peak on one plane coincide in time with the other two (of course, amplitude of all three has to be overlapping). In that moment all three planes become 'connected' at the spot where peaks on all three matched position and have to share common space , forming 3D object. Yes, funny, but that means 3D world is not of 1+1+1 dimension. Minimum is needed 5x 2D planes)))

cheers board)












edit on 24-12-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Verlinde

...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.


In my perceiving of understanding what Verlinde is positing, the bold underlined part of the quote does not come across as logical. The other part of the quote I have underlined, suggesting that gravity is an emergent phenomenon, actually sounds disingenuous, as one can technically state that all of the fundamental forces of nature are emergent, each from a cause of their own. Some 'String' theorists will state that all the fundamental forces arise out of the vibrating dynamics of the strings deep inside quarks?

Rather than give a long preamble, I'll state something quite simple with regard to what gravity (I feel) actually is. Gravity is the fundamental force arising out of the motion of all matter in the universe. For instance, the moon orbits the earth, the earth orbits the sun, the sun orbits around the centre of the galaxy, and the galaxies orbit about each other. Gravity is to motion as the magnetic field is to electricity.

Remember, Einstein did away with the idea of the 'ether' and replaced it with 'spacetime', but this too, was disingenuous, as the 'time' part of 'space-time' does not exist in reality, it is but an abstraction of mathematics. It works because the abstract measurement of time, for instance, the second, has an observable measurable beginning and an observable measurable end. The distance between the observed beginning and the observed end is called 'duration'. Duration is the measurement of 'events', and an event can be anything from photon emission from an electron, to the motion of a degree of an arc of the entire observable matter universe. We derive 'time' from the observation of the duration of events. Thus, the second is the distance between the observed measurable oscillation rate of the caesium atom. One oscillation of this atom has a length of duration, and is determines the length of a second. So you see, time has no existential reality of its own, time is something we impose on reality by measuring observable lengths of duration.

Space, the first part of Einstein's spacetime, has no interactive properties. With this statement I am disavowing acceptance that space can be warped by mass. Don't get me wrong, 'something' is indeed being warped by mass, but it is not space, it is not time, nor is it spacetime, it is gravity itself.

It is gravity that pervades all space, because all the mass of the matter content in space is in motion about itself. The strength of gravity is determined by the distance between the centres of the mass of objects to each other. The further they are apart, the weaker the influence of gravity, and of course, the closer they are together the stronger the gravitational reaction they have upon one another. Gravity (imho) is a 'relational' force of motion, and was the first fundamental force in nature to arise.

Clearly, I cannot accept Verlinde's theory.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

Gravity arising from motion can be disproved logically...for example, if I bring into converstation tidal effect between Moon and Earth. If I stop time (hypothetically), where the Moon and Earth stand still relative to each other (no motion), there will still be tidal effect between the two clearly indicating that there is something out of ordinary with space-time. In presence of mass like Earth space is altered from it's normal state into a state where metric is read differently compare to space when away from Earth.. Without going off topic, I will simply say that space is very subject to stretching.

)
edit on 27-12-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-12-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   
greenreflections:

If I stop time (hypothetically), where the Moon and Earth stand still relative to each other (no motion), there will still be tidal effect between the two...


Apologies, but what you are suggesting is not logical. You are placing biased filtering upon your analogy, you cannot be selective with the effects of stopping time (duration) by inhibiting events.

If you stop the earth's and the moon's motion, you immediately stop all effects that their motion about one another induce, so there would not be tidal motion based on the relationship between the earth and the moon. Suppose you stood on your front lawn, and the earth suddenly stopped spinning...what do you think is going to happen? You will start to float. Motion is what induces gravity.


I will simply say that space is very subject to stretching.


You cannot stretch that which has no interactive properties...space does not interact with anything.



edit on 28/12/16 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire


I'll state something quite simple with regard to what gravity (I feel) actually is...

Good thing physics does not rely on how somebody feels about it.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Speak for yourself!

*floats away*



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join